Noah's Ark found; experts "99.9% sure"

[tomviolence]

I was intrigued and read the story when I saw it, and used google news to try and find more details. There really aren't any details. How big is it ? what is the layout ? what is it made of (wood ?? From where ? If it is local wood, it most likely is a local strucure, I would be impressed if it was from wood 10,000 miles away.)

If one just considers the reported facts, a boat was left on top of a mountain by flood waters 4,800 years ago, it kind of leads one to dismiss it. There are many documented civilizations that were in existance 4,800 years ago that were not destroyed by a 13,000 foot high flood.

I would be interested to know more of the story, but really cannot fathom it being Noah's Ark.

 

[Bertilak]

Let's see, a 4000 meter flood. Remaining evidence: some wooden planks. Damn, why am I still skeptical....

That's the part that gets me. Where did all that water come from and where did it go?

Covering the entire Earth's surface in 12,000 feet of water is a lot bigger mystery than where the boat was hiding. Do we see evidence of that water level on any other mountains? I'd work on that one next!

 

[luvmysuper]

That's the thing that has always stumped me, how there are thousands of different religions all sure that they're right and all the others are wrong, so at the very best, well over half the people on Earth are doomed. Maybe it's some little tribal faith with 1000 followers in Africa that's the right one, then 99.99999% of us are in trouble lol.

Christopher Hitchens wrote some funny thing about that, saying how if it wasn't man who made God, then God must suffer from some very extreme form of multiple personality disorder.

But, I think generally speaking though there are thousands of different religions and sub-religions around the world, you can trace them all back to a pretty small number of base roots from which everything that exists today branched out.

Check into some religious philosophy. There are many great philosophers who think that the esoteric portions of religions are the same and that the exoteric areas are the only differences. Basically, that the spirituality of many religions are based on the same premises and that only the traditions and rituals are different. Many believe in philosophia perennis.

So, if this is true it could mean that many religions are correct. Or depending on your beliefs, that many are wrong.

If you read the entire series "The Chronicles of Narnia", this is what C.S. Lewis was going with. And he was probably the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century.

That's the part that gets me. Where did all that water come from and where did it go?

Covering the entire Earth's surface in 12,000 feet of water is a lot bigger mystery than where the boat was hiding. Do we see evidence of that water level on any other mountains? I'd work on that one next!

I am a man of faith, but I think that most of us agree that the story is anecdotal, designed to deliver a point, rather than documentation of an actual historical event encompassing the entire earth.

 

[Desdinova]

Not just Zeitgeist. It's more than meer coincidence that many of the world religions share some of the same ideals and imagery. You'd be naive if you thought each religion and its ideas were exclusive.

As for the flood story, I would go as far as saying that perhaps there was a flood long ago and a group of people wrote about it, shared it and that idea spread to other areas and were even incorporated into various stories. I think the "Great Flood" is more symbolism for washing away the old and beginning a new.

One theory is that it wasn't a flood but a tsunami. Which explains the sudden appearance of water and loss of life. Leaving a few survivors that wrote about it.

Subsequent religions took these stories and weaved them into part of their mythos.

 

[Desdinova]

I was intrigued and read the story when I saw it, and used google news to try and find more details. There really aren't any details. How big is it ? what is the layout ? what is it made of (wood ?? From where ? If it is local wood, it most likely is a local strucure, I would be impressed if it was from wood 10,000 miles away.)

If one just considers the reported facts, a boat was left on top of a mountain by flood waters 4,800 years ago, it kind of leads one to dismiss it. There are many documented civilizations that were in existance 4,800 years ago that were not destroyed by a 13,000 foot high flood.

I would be interested to know more of the story, but really cannot fathom it being Noah's Ark.

We can't take old testament dating verbatim. If you do, you will just end up banging your head on the wall trying to figure it all out.

 

[Stubblefield]

If you read the entire series "The Chronicles of Narnia", this is what C.S. Lewis was going with. And he was probably the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century.

I think G.K. Chesterton could give him a run for his money.

(I jest somewhat, tho I do think Chesterton wrote better fiction)

 

[Kevan]

I'll withhold any comments on the impossible portions of the Ark story as presented in the Old Testament. But the thing that gets me about this is that they are so quick to say they found Noah's Ark when it could be anything.

 

[raisindot]

I'll withhold any comments on the impossible portions of the Ark story as presented in the Old Testament. But the thing that gets me about this is that they are so quick to say they found Noah's Ark when it could be anything.

Ummm, if they said "Look, we found the rotted remains of some old boat" they wouldn't get any media attention (or any discussions here), would they.

Jeff in Boston

 

[SpyvSpy]

I see the arches all the time....wait that's ark and were not talking about Mcdonalds?

 

[Bertilak]

I am a man of faith, but I think that most of us agree that the story is anecdotal, designed to deliver a point, rather than documentation of an actual historical event encompassing the entire earth.

Agree 100% -- See, for example, Gilgamesh, which predates the Old Testament..

While not of a "whole earth" magnitude, I believe there has been some work relating to possible dramatic elevation changes of the Black Sea, possibly due to the sudden opening up of the straights leading into it. That would be in the right general vicinity and have been of a magnitude to get woven into the people's legends and histories. There may have been other similar catastrophic floods in the misty past.

But the point is any ark involved would not have settled on top of a 12,000 foot mountain.

 

[luvmysuper]

Agree 100% -- See, for example, Gilgamesh, which predates the Old Testament..

While not of a "whole earth" magnitude, I believe there has been some work relating to possible dramatic elevation changes of the Black Sea, possibly due to the sudden opening up of the straights leading into it. That would be in the right general vicinity and have been of a magnitude to get woven into the people's legends and histories. There may have been other similar catastrophic floods in the misty past.

But the point is any ark involved would not have settled on top of a 12,000 foot mountain.

I personally do not believe that what they have found is any Ark that might have been described in the Old Testament. I don't know what it is that they found, but I don't believe it's the Ark.
A Deity which would elicit a religion based upon a system of faith by its members, and whom is powerful enough to create the Universe simply by saying so, is certainly powerful enough to ensure no potential relics are found which would prove existence and thereby prevent the exercise of faith.

 

[miamimoe]

I personally do not believe that what they have found is any Ark that might have been described in the Old Testament. I don't know what it is that they found, but I don't believe it's the Ark.
A Deity which would elicit a religion based upon a system of faith by its members, and whom is powerful enough to create the Universe simply by saying so, is certainly powerful enough to ensure no potential relics are found which would prove existence and thereby prevent the exercise of faith.

I must disagree with you on this one. Relics are and have been found that do prove the existence of matters set forth in the Tanach (Old Testament). A good example is the Arch of Titus in Rome. The Arch celebrates the Roman destruction of the 2nd Temple. On the Arch itself are depictions of the Menorah and the Table of the Show Breads, which are articles clearly described in the 5 Books of Moses. The 5 Books were written some 3,300 years ago, and the Temple was destroyed in the year 70 C.E. Why would the Romans depict the carrying away of religious artifacts that were close to 1,400 years old if the items did not exist at the time that the Arch was built. By your theory, since the 2nd Temple was destroyed, then the deity that commanded the destruction would also have had the relics destroyed as part of the Roman destruction.

 

[luvmysuper]

I must disagree with you on this one. Relics are and have been found that do prove the existence of matters set forth in the Tanach (Old Testament). A good example is the Arch of Titus in Rome. The Arch celebrates the Roman destruction of the 2nd Temple. On the Arch itself are depictions of the Menorah and the Table of the Show Breads, which are articles clearly described in the 5 Books of Moses. The 5 Books were written some 3,300 years ago, and the Temple was destroyed in the year 70 C.E. Why would the Romans depict the carrying away of religious artifacts that were close to 1,400 years old if the items did not exist at the time that the Arch was built. By your theory, since the 2nd Temple was destroyed, then the deity that commanded the destruction would also have had the relics destroyed as part of the Roman destruction.

Sorry if I left some doubt in my statement. I wasn't inferring that a Diety wouldn't permit relics. There have been archeoligical artifacts found which coincide with Old Testament stories. That wasn't the point I was making. To have an artifact that proves a city existed or a battle was engaged is one thing. To have an artifact that would prove that God had destroyed mankind and started from sctratch is quite another.

I personally do not believe that what they have found is any Ark that might have been described in the Old Testament. I don't know what it is that they found, but I don't believe it's the Ark.
A Deity which would elicit a religion based upon a system of faith by its members, and whom is powerful enough to create the Universe simply by saying so, is certainly powerful enough to ensure no potential relics are found which would prove existence and thereby prevent the exercise of faith.

I certainly think that an Omnipotent being would be able to determine which relics or artifacts would give hope and encourage devotion as oppossed to relics or artifacts which would prove existence of the Diety and reduce faith to the state motto of Missouri.

This is just my own personal perspective, YMMV

 

[CaribbeanSoul]

Why do non-believers try to use science and "fact" to disprove the supernatural? IMHO...it is much easier to be Christian than it is to be an Atheist. Jus' sayin...

 

[Aevum]

ok,
first of alll, before you write to this thread, take a breath and think before you write, there are non believes and believers here, both with arguments and reasonings, but this can turn ugly quite quickly,

now, theres a book called the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, its quite good one of the best comic science fiction around, very funny, one of the parts tells of a fish called the babel fish, which is the ultimate proof that god dosnt exist, its a fish that feeds off brainwaves and in return provides the "wearer" the hability to understand any spoken language, being such a specific creature that could have not resulted from natural selection, it is proof that a higher power has designed it, but at the same time, proof negates faith, and therefore negates god, so empirical proof of god automaticly negates fate and therefore negates god,

i personaly believe the bible is a assortment of folk and tribal stories from the middle east, and i know that the bibles, new testaments and korans we have today are the "approved" versions by the authorities of each religion, this has been seen alot in the new testament where the catholic church on some occasions in history has played "pick and choose" on which gospels were true and which were false, if you want to believe in a god, its your right, if you dont, its also your right, but when you start imposing and then crying faul/persecution when you dont get your way, well, if theres a god, he will judge me, so mind your own business, becuase when you see extreamist muslims issuing fatwas, fundamentalist christians trying to destroy science education or jewish settlers abusing their position of power, and then crying foul and discrimination when they dont get their way, its not exactly a point in favor of god,

just remember, take it easy, think before you type and if you excuse my vulgarity i´ll say, Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one and everyone things everyone elses stinks,

 

[SpyvSpy]

Why do non-believers try to use science and "fact" to disprove the supernatural? IMHO...it is much easier to be Christian than it is to be an Atheist. Jus' sayin...

Is it true you guys don't beleive in dinosaurs?

 

[CaribbeanSoul]

Don't know about the other "guys"...but I believe in dinosaurs...they are what gasoline is made from!

 

[Aevum]

hehe,
the easier being a christian part is nice, reminds me of pascals wager,

pascals wager goes like this :
the benefit of being a christian outweights the benefit of being a non believer,
look at it as a wager with 2 options
1) god exists
2) god dosnt exist

if 1 is true, then being a christian you have everything to gain, but not believing in god mean you have everything to lose by going to hell
if 2 is true, then you lose nothing by being a christian, and gain nothing by not beliving in god,
in other words, you have more to gain by being a christian then being an unbeliever,

unfortunatly : you have 2 major problems
1) you assume any all knowing all seeing god is stupid enough to ignore the fact that your only reason for being a christian is the reward of heaven, meaning greed, capital sin, you go to hell anyways,
2) considering the ammount of religions currently on earth, add to that splinters from main religions ike sunni vs shiate or protestant vs methodist vs catholic vs the other hundred or so christian offshoots, add to that past religions which have died out and future religions which have yet to be concived/discovered, and take in to account that roughly 95% of them have the "you shall have no other god before me" caluse in the contract, if god and heaven exists, the chances of you finding the actual god you believe in waiting for you at the gates is quite slim,

plus, looking at the comment you made more simplistic,
if you were born in tel aviv, it would be easier to be a jew,
if you were born un ri´aad, it would be easier to be a muslim,
if you were born in classical greece, it would be easier to follow zeus,

 

[Bertilak]

Why do non-believers try to use science and "fact" to disprove the supernatural? IMHO...it is much easier to be Christian than it is to be an Atheist. Jus' sayin...

So you are saying facts and science (reasoning) should not be used in establishing belief, but the other way around?

I guess my fundamental belief is that the universe is, at some level, self-consistent and that consistency can can be used to derive truths, including the truth of that belief itself. It is consistency that gives weight to evidence actually being evidence of something. If not absolute truth then at least a pointer towards the more likely truth. For me, this is what makes things more or less easy to believe -- evidence and reasoning. For me, assigning something to the supernatural is just a way of saying "I don't know", and is not a kind of knowing in itself.

I have more minor objections to assigning a supernatural cause to the *beginnings* of everything since at our current level of knowledge it is fair for anyone to say "I don't know" about that. One objection is that, if the universe exists by all-powerful fiat, why is it not simply arbitrary and random? Why the exquisite interlocking of everything? Another objection is that things we (human civilization) used to be completely in the dark about now have non-supernatural explanations so why is the current situation qualitatively different? Is it coincidence that we happen to be at the point of ultimate understanding with no hope of digging deeper? We wouldn't be the first to think so. After all, there used to be only four elements -- Earth, Fire, Water, and Air (or Aether, depending who you ask).

 

[miamimoe]

We can't take old testament dating verbatim. If you do, you will just end up banging your head on the wall trying to figure it all out.

Actually, the dating is not that difficult, but it is not done in what many would consider a modern method. Even a Chinese Abacus would be more modern. Much of the dating in the Tanach (Old Testament) is done by using events as signposts, if you will. A good example is in the First Book, where the generations of the descendants are given. The ages of the descendants are used relative to each other in order to determine the time span between them and date events. Further, the Tanach was written before the advent of modern numerals. In Hebrew, the letters were used for numbers, A=1, B=2, and so on; and combinations of them can be used for higher numbers. This interplay of letters with numbers is the basis of the Bible Code books, which are most interesting.

Another point I would make is that the modern Bible used by most people, e.g. King James, is the third translation from the original. The Tanach was written in Hebrew. It was then translated into Greek, called the Septuagint, then translated into Latin, which is known as the Vulgate, and finally into English and other languages.

I speak 3 languages, 2 at a mother tongue level, and one at a learned level. Hebrew can be very difficult to translate to English, and there are many errors of translation. I will use 2 examples that are commonly known: First, people believe that the Ten Commandments states: "Thou shall not kill". That is incorrect. It says: "Thou shall not murder". In ancient Hebrew, there were words which are equivalent to murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide. The Ten Commandments explicitly uses the word for murder, and not killing. The other example is The Red Sea. In Hebrew, it is called "Yam Soof", which means the Sea of Reeds. The Hebrew word for red is "adom". This was mistranslated a long time ago, and has become ingrained in culture as the correct term, which from a strictly linguistic point of view, is inaccurate.

Finally, I would also point out that there is a vast difference between Old Hebrew as used in the bible, and modern Hebrew as spoken today, akin to how we speak English today as opposed to the Olde English of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

When you start talking about the Bible, all of these matters must be factored in.