Noah's Ark Found in Iran?!

[Ryokan]

I'm an extremely conservative person used to being laughed at by people who are liberal. These people usually say "Just Kidding" after a while, or in your case, "Let's laugh together!".

Averse to fact checking and conservative are not the same thing.

[NeilUnreal]

...or in your case, "Let's laugh together!"

Except I really mean it.

Why would you think I take more joy in seeing you personally defeated than in seeing you enjoying yourself? Because we're doing a little mild jousting over an interpretation of some scientific evidence?

Actually, I'm glad there are people here presenting other viewpoints; it makes it more fun. But the fact that I'm willing to argue against and debunk those viewpoints with every rhetorical tool at my disposal says nothing - nada - about my feelings of their personal worth or about any desire to ridicule or defeat them personally.

-Neil

[WaterOfOblivion]

There aren't enough facts to check at the moment. The information coming out of the BASE institute is being heavily managed for profit.

[Jawa Man]

Yo Ryokan,

Again, at risk of sounding heretical, Jesus was not omniscient on Earth. He had no special knowledge of Noah, or history, or other such things a intelligent Jewish teacher would have known except when they were illuminated to him by the Father.. However he was sinless, he was wise, and he was at least a very gifted and studious student of Hebrew scripture. He could use Noah's story, and even believe it was truth not myth, without Christians now with better access to archaelogical and geological data taking the story literally. What we have to take seriously is the message of the Noah story, Jesus's message, and the message Jesus illustrated using the Noah story.

Although I agree that Jesus had limited knowledge on earth, I don't think that Jesus had false knowledge. I think a better explanation you could have, if you don't believe a global flood, is a localized flood for just that area (since the word "world" in the Bible can literally mean the world or a certain area). Remember what Josephus said to argue for the flood, too:

Josephus, Antiquities Book 1 Chapter 6

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

© source where applicable

And I think it's not a stretch to say he wasn't trying to lie, since his target audience was Greek, and people who are educated enough to read would probably be wealthy enough or educated enough to investigate or have read these accounts themselves (he did say barbarian writers wrote about it, after all). Anyway, in the chapter before, he also mentions a city that settled on the foot of the mountain that supposedly Noah got off from. It's said that they even had the remains of the Ark there. Who knows if they had the real deal or not, but at least he's making a point that back then, the Flood story was not just restricted to the Jews. I've also read Gilgamesh, and they have a Flood story that is similar in a lot of ways, and definitely different in others. My only point is that the fact that different cultures talk about it suggests some sort of Flood happened, at least on a local level.

But I'm really not sure about what the nature of the Flood was. My position is that it was global, but I wouldn't die for that. It's just to me, the evidence surrounding these things changes, is added onto, and is sometimes deleted.

And as gm knows, I definitely respect non-YEC views and wouldn't be surprised if they're right. It's just my own opinion, that I would never die for, that the Bible is givin' the real deal as it's been traditionally interpreted (but then, even in the early Church, some of the Fathers were convinced before evolution was around that the seven days of creation should not be viewed literally).

EDIT: Oh yeah!!! In my college, which is entirely secular and state-run and the former number one party school in America (SUNY Albany!!!), my history teacher, is not a Christian (at least, I figure that because he criticizes Christianity's development all the time, and also buys into the Zoroastrianism-influencing-the-Jews idea). However, he said he believes there must have been a flood, because he said too many cultures talk about it for something not to have happened.

[Ryokan]

Yo Ryokan,

Although I agree that Jesus had limited knowledge on earth, I don't think that Jesus had false knowledge. I think a better explanation you could have, if you don't believe a global flood, is a localized flood for just that area (since the word "world" in the Bible can literally mean the world or a certain area). Remember what Josephus said to argue for the flood, too:

Maybe. I'm not dogmatic in my position. Jesus almost certainly believed the earth was the center of the universe, though, clearly false knowledge. What Jesus could NOT be false in is his interpretation of the scriptures meaning.

Josephus, Antiquities Book 1 Chapter 6

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

© source where applicable

And I think it's not a stretch to say he wasn't trying to lie, since his target audience was Greek, and people who are educated enough to read would probably be wealthy enough or educated enough to investigate or have read these accounts themselves (he did say barbarian writers wrote about it, after all). Anyway, in the chapter before, he also mentions a city that settled on the foot of the mountain that supposedly Noah got off from. It's said that they even had the remains of the Ark there. Who knows if they had the real deal or not, but at least he's making a point that back then, the Flood story was not just restricted to the Jews. I've also read Gilgamesh, and they have a Flood story that is similar in a lot of ways, and definitely different in others. My only point is that the fact that different cultures talk about it suggests some sort of Flood happened, at least on a local level.

But I'm really not sure about what the nature of the Flood was. My position is that it was global, but I wouldn't die for that. It's just to me, the evidence surrounding these things changes, is added onto, and is sometimes deleted.

And as gm knows, I definitely respect non-YEC views and wouldn't be surprised if they're right. It's just my own opinion, that I would never die for, that the Bible is givin' the real deal as it's been traditionally interpreted (but then, even in the early Church, some of the Fathers were convinced before evolution was around that the seven days of creation should not be viewed literally).

EDIT: Oh yeah!!! In my college, which is entirely secular and state-run and the former number one party school in America (SUNY Albany!!!), my history teacher, is not a Christian (at least, I figure that because he criticizes Christianity's development all the time, and also buys into the Zoroastrianism-influencing-the-Jews idea). However, he said he believes there must have been a flood, because he said too many cultures talk about it for something not to have happened.

I'll get back too you after dinner.

[grmorton]

At this point I have a guarded hopeful optimism because it would be tons of fun for the Ark to be up there.

So your optimism is based upon your subjective desire for fun, but not based upon truth or the likelihood of truth? Interesting. A conservative Christian who doesn't believe in objective truth.

As far as Neil's points about petrification etc etc etc, "Science" just might have to revise it's views if a big petrified boat is discovered at a high altitude. Of course "Science" hasn't had to change it's views at all recently. Scientists have discovered all the laws, all the principles and all the truth there is to discover and are presently writing the Definitive Work on all that is Scientific.

Do you have the foggiest notion of how little silicon is dissolved in the atmosphere with which to petrify wood? And if it happens all the time, why don't tree trunks petrify in a few years? For that matter, why doesn't an old house show signs of petrifaction? Why should science change their opinion when there is no reason for them to change their opinion, save for the fun you want to have?

[grmorton]

It could have gotten buried over thousands of winters of snow and thaw and geological shift, petrified, and recently exposed to air again.

So why don't we find petrified tree trunks by the bucket load in Canada?

And what exactly is a geological shift? Is this a new football formation?

[grmorton]

You are forgetting thousands of years of water in the snow that could have dissolved nearby rock and petrified the wood, not to mention it could have been buried by geological shifts in the mountain over the millennia.

And you don't understand that there isn't enough minerals in snow which falls from the air and thus has no access to nearby rock to petrify anything. Why don't we see this phenomenon in Alaska, Canada, Siberia etc? You also don't understand that when frozen, it is hard for water to dissolve minerals out of rock. You need to take some chemistry before you say silly things like this.

From the looks of the pictures the structure is pretty well destroyed. It looks like a pile of wood beams if anything at all.

Looks like basalt.

I have no bias on the matter myself. It might or might not be the ark or even wood.

YOu have a tremendous bias in this issue. You WANT the ark story to be true.

You just don't have enough information yet.

And if he doesn't why does that automatically mean you do have the information to believe this is the ark?

Good golly Christians are gullible. Wanna buy a bridge from me? It spans San Francisco Bay and is Golden. I will sell it to you for the right price because you are my friend.

[bandecoot]

The funny thing about this is now that Turkey is opening up because it wants to join the EU. The Ark suddenly is found in IRAN? Another place where Christians/Americans are really welcome to wander around inside their borders. NOT!

Are we to see a Battle of the Arks now? With the Turk supporters Lining up Behind Wyatt and the Iran supporters behind Cornuke with their wallets open.

Lets face it, none of the supporters are going to actually get a chance to see either site.

Or perhaps some nifty apologist will wrench the OT verses to say It was not one boat but a fleet?

[grmorton]

I know of one YEC who's checked on this. Tas Walker has taken a very cautionary and I think reasonable tone.



Why go through the trouble of radiocarbon when a simple thin section viewed under a scope or mapping the "outcrops" would do as well? Maybe they should have taken a geologist along with them.

I am glad to hear of Tas' position. As to taking a geologist along, that would spoil the book sales.

The thing that is so incredible to me is that so many christians show not the slightest signs of doing what Jesus said to do:

Matt 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves"

YECs think that the only wolves are evolutionists. They don't realize how many wolves walk with them and look like them. They don't realize how many people will make up things for fame, money and prestige. Let's see, Michael Warnke comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Warnke

[Crow]

Y'know, it really puts me into a slow burn when I see stories like this Iraq ark one.

"Looks like" "appears to be" "preliminary results indicate....(insert anything that might lead the imaginative to think your position might be correct)*....

Why do so many Christians willingly skip behind a pied piper with a book to sell, even when it's in-your-face obvious that said piper has a lot to gain by making folks believe that he has found something that agrees with their beliefs? And sans conclusive evidence? And so predictably?

The story of the pied piper is a charming tale and the lesson is lost on many of us. So let us examine another nursery story, perhaps one that is more accessable. The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

The boy who cried "wolf" did so when there was no wolf, and did so frequently. His pronouncements were so many and so quickly disproven that when he actually encountered a wolf not a soul believed him.

In the "wolf" tale, only the boy gets eaten. But in the case of the "arks" we see touted, the victim pool is a bit broader. Our faith gets perceived by many as the collective beliefs of the gullible, and prima facie evidence that there is indeed one born every minute. These goofy "discoveries" discredit Christianity and are a stumbling block to belief by those who are not Christian.

The Christian community would be better served by waiting until someone has presented proof that something is exactly what the discoverers claim it is before we hop on the bandwagon and use it as proof that a Biblical account is accurate.

Remember the Piltdown man? I'll bet we all know what that was about. Do we think that we can present whole tribes of similar fiascos to the unsaved and then reasonably expect that we have aided them in finding faith?

[FreezBee]

"Looks like" "appears to be" "preliminary results indicate....(insert anything that might lead the imaginative to think your position might be correct)*....

Thistle, don't worry, they are just being scientific and not jumping to conclusions.

Why do so many Christians willingly skip behind a pied piper with a book to sell, even when it's in-your-face obvious that said piper has a lot to gain by making folks believe that he has found something that agrees with their beliefs? And sans conclusive evidence? And so predictably?

With a book to sell? Now, now, Thistle, I certainly hope that you are not accusing a fellow Christian of doing this only for marketing purposes. Bible-believing Christians are truthfullness incarnate, you know.

Remember the Piltdown man? I'll bet we all know what that was about. Do we think that we can present whole tribes of similar fiascos to the unsaved and then reasonably expect that we have aided them in finding faith?

But we have given them something to laugh about, haven't we? And one day we'll ask them to pay for the entertainment, and that'll be the day


- FreezBee

[Crow]

Thistle, don't worry, they are just being scientific and not jumping to conclusions.

uh, right. Pass that, will you, and quit bogarting.

With a book to sell? Now, now, Thistle, I certainly hope that you are not accusing a fellow Christian of doing this only for marketing purposes. Bible-believing Christians are truthfullness incarnate, you know.

Y'all must know a whole different bunch of Christians than I do. The ones around here haven't quite attained perfection yet. Not by a long shot.

But we have given them something to laugh about, haven't we? And one day we'll ask them to pay for the entertainment, and that'll be the day

- FreezBee

Hey, why not laugh? I laugh at this stuff like I laugh at Benny Hinn and his fake miracles. But I get kinda irked with it too. The entertainment value does not offset the damage. There are quite a few who manage to find faith in Christ, and it doesn't require seeing holy apparitions on grilled cheese sandwiches and boards on basalt and the like.

[WaterOfOblivion]

So your optimism is based upon your subjective desire for fun, but not based upon truth or the likelihood of truth?

Gr, I know the Ark was. I don't know where it is or how much is left of it. If found it would be a great archelogical find and I would be intellectually fascinated. The Ark would be something true and objective from one of the vaguest periods of Biblical accounting.

Interesting. A conservative Christian who doesn't believe in objective truth.

No, a conservative Christian who believes in objective truth. Where did you get the notion that I didn't?

Do you have the foggiest notion of how little silicon is dissolved in the atmosphere with which to petrify wood? And if it happens all the time, why don't tree trunks petrify in a few years? For that matter, why doesn't an old house show signs of petrifaction? Why should science change their opinion when there is no reason for them to change their opinion, save for the fun you want to have?

Oh, well, I don't think Scientists are objective. Sorry. Also science doesn't change with the facts, science is a method, not a system of organized, true and objective facts. It's methodology that is concerned with discovering what those facts are.

[WaterOfOblivion]

Are we to see a Battle of the Arks now? With the Turk supporters Lining up Behind Wyatt and the Iran supporters behind Cornuke with their wallets open.

Oh, I like this. It smacks of a reality show.....