Was Noah's Ark a myth?

[Orion]

Um, . . . . .why would a vessel, that would NOT be built for direction, had no sails, no rudder, nothing to steer it, . . . need a pointed front?

Also, that's been shown to be a natural phenomena.

 

[handy]

John, I think I'll only be open to believing that might be the site of the ark if someone can point to a verse in Genesis that states that Aluminum and Titianium were part of the building supplies that Noah used.

 

[John]

Um, . . . . .why would a vessel, that would NOT be built for direction, had no sails, no rudder, nothing to steer it, . . . need a pointed front?

Also, that's been shown to be a natural phenomena.

To break/crest waves. Even barges have a slanted front but then again barges were not meant to survive the greatest disaster this world has ever seen. The arks design was perfect.

 

[John]

John, I think I'll only be open to believing that might be the site of the ark if someone can point to a verse in Genesis that states that Aluminum and Titianium were part of the building supplies that Noah used.

So because the Bible doe snot say anything meant that it was not so? Men were older and probably smarter, just because Noah did not listen to an Ipod or have a GPS doe snot mean squat.

 

[handy]

In this case I say yes, because God gave us such great details about how Noah was to build the ark. Gopher wood and pitch and exact measurements. No one knows just what type of wood Gopher wood was, perhaps the trees that provided the wood are now extinct. However, it was clearly some kind of wood not a metal.

I know that the outline looks like a ship. If I had a digital camera, I could show a picture of a completely natural formation near hear that looks so much like a steer's head with horns that even my kids were able to pick it out without having to have it pointed out to them. Even the "face" on Mars shows that many times natural formations can and do occur without any help from man (or Martians) involved.

It's good to know that good old capitalism that could make a buck off of tourists was alive and well even back then though. I trully liked the touch about the "Noah" souvineers. ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

I spoke nothing of "delusions". If you wish to beleive the story to be literal and global, that is your choice. I do not.

And if you are right, doesnt that mean that my belief in something that doesnt exist is 'delusional' ?

By the way, there is no Santa Clause. Just so you know.

But I believe there is. Dont you want to discuss it ?

 

[handy]

:o There's no Santa Claus.

 

[Orion]

Um, . . . . .why would a vessel, that would NOT be built for direction, had no sails, no rudder, nothing to steer it, . . . need a pointed front?

Also, that's been shown to be a natural phenomena.

To break/crest waves. Even barges have a slanted front but then again barges were not meant to survive the greatest disaster this world has ever seen. The arks design was perfect.

Barges still travel in a one directional line WITH some sort of power source. Floating requires no need of a pointed front end.

 

[Orion]

[quote="follower of Christ]
And if you are right, doesnt that mean that my belief in something that doesnt exist is 'delusional' ?
[/quote]

Of course not. It just means you were mistaken. It goes either way.

 

[follower of Christ]

Of course not. It just means you were mistaken. It goes either way.

eh. I sort of lost interest inthe topic anyway

 

[greentwiga]

The ark has been found.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah%27s_ark.htm

I had a boss who went on that expedition. You should have heard this Christian talk disparagingly about the claim that this rock formation was ever a boat. I mentioned the Berdi reed boat that was the better translation of the gopher "wood" mentioned in the Bible. There were several different styles of reed boats. There were the ocean going varieties that had a sail, and the raft styles that may still be used to take the reeds to the paper-making plants. Though never powered, they still have a pointed prow. The Berdi reed boat fits the Bible, fits known ancient history, fits known science, and fits current usage, even to people still using a tar and pitch mixture for their floating houses made of Berdi reeds in Southern Iraq.

 

[Orion]

All I'm saying is that any boat is made with the ability to travel on the water, to go from one place to the other. Even the ones you mention that were "unpowered". I'm sure they still traveled from site to site, and yes, a pointed front is necessary. The fictiscious ark, on the other hand, would not "travel" anywhere, but would be for floating only. Pointing a front end would only take away from internal space for "all the animals".

It doesn't matter, because "design of the vessel" is about the smallest portion of why I see the story as a myth.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I believe it to be an allegory. Meant to send a mention to believers of God as a cautionary tale.

 

[follower of Christ]

It doesn't matter, because "design of the vessel" is about the smallest portion of why I see the story as a myth.

I saw a man who was a preacher for a number of years who decided that God didnt exist because of Noahs Ark. He had looked at some data that made him believe that the Ark could not have withstood the waves and for whatever reason turned his back on God because of his unbelief.

A few years later I saw an article where a gent who was pretty skilled in that sort of thing presented that Noahs Ark COULD have withstood what it probably went thru. So this man who turned on God did so without any real reason, he simply did not firstly have enough data and probably based his views on what the unsaved were telling him about the Ark.
And secondly dont we have FAITH that *IF* God could create all that is that He certainly could keep some pieces of wood together long enough for some flood waters to recede ?

Personally I believe that the creation account and Noahs Flood are two 'tests' of sorts. I believe they happened just as Gods word says they did and that they create a dividing line between those who CHOOSE to believe God 'just because' He IS God and thus cultivate that faith in Him to maturity...and those who decide that fallible, limited man knows all...

 

[Orion]

And I would agree with you if there wasn't so much evidence (and GOOD evidence) to the contrary of either a global deluge or the earth and universe beginning 6-10 thousand years ago. But I digress..

The guy who chose not to believe in God, based upon a story, was obviously not looking at it the right way. Regardless of whether or not a story, in a religious text, is true or not, plays little role in the existance of any deity.

 

[follower of Christ]

And I would agree with you if there wasn't so much evidence (and GOOD evidence) to the contrary of either a global deluge or the earth and universe beginning 6-10 thousand years ago. But I digress..

Just as I presented. We refuse to believe solely because MAN has INTERPRETED the evidence in such a way as it seems to disagree with Gods account.

The guy who chose not to believe in God, based upon a story, was obviously not looking at it the right way.

He chose to disbelieve because he looked at fallible secular data and decided that God was wrong, therefore God didnt exist.

Regardless of whether or not a story, in a religious text, is true or not, plays little role in the existance of any deity.

Really ?
So the 'stories' of Jesus Christ in our 'religious text' can either be true or not and that plays little role in whether He exists or not ?

I didnt ask...are you a believing christian ?

 

[Orion]

The evidence I speak of has more to do with stellar data rather than just "evidence for or against a world wide flood".

As for the guy, even if science shows no PROOF of God . . . doesn't make such a being unreal.

I don't characterize myself as a "christian" anymore. I don't believe in many of the same doctrines that the church insists one must have in order to "be saved". Even in the case for Jesus, there are a few bits of historical documents that mention him. I am unversed as to those documents and how much they mention Jesus, and if they reference the miracles, or if they [the miracles] were only recorded in the Bible.

 

[greentwiga]

The evidence I speak of has more to do with stellar data rather than just "evidence for or against a world wide flood".

As for the guy, even if science shows no PROOF of God . . . doesn't make such a being unreal.

I don't characterize myself as a "christian" anymore. I don't believe in many of the same doctrines that the church insists one must have in order to "be saved". Even in the case for Jesus, there are a few bits of historical documents that mention him. I am unversed as to those documents and how much they mention Jesus, and if they reference the miracles, or if they [the miracles] were only recorded in the Bible.

I can see your point. The universe shows evidence of being 12-15 billion years old. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood that covered the highest mountains. If the Bible is not saying that the universe was created around 4,000 BC, and if the Bible says the flood was a regional flood, these objections would go away. That is why I have been studying the texts to see what they say. I am convinced that the flood was regional and scientifically possible. This, though, does not prove God, it just eliminates a reason to reject God.
As for proof of God, the only proof that we can have today is changed lives. If you have not seen God actively working in your life, then from a practical point, why would you believe in something that has no benefit to you. All I can say is that I have seen God changing me. Paul talks about the Spirit's activity as being like a down payment, letting us know that his promise for the future is also true. Without seeing that downpayment, you would have no reason to believe in the rest. With no proof, one would just as logically believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Orion]

Good post, green. Isn't there another place where the Bible mentions "the world" but obviously only actually is referencing a certain region, . . . in other words, THEIR observed "world"? But yeah, the universe shows obvious and blantant evidence of being billions of years old.

As for "God changing my life", . . .or anyone's for that matter, . . . the person still has to CHOOSE to change their behavior. Nothing "magical" happens other than the person buckling down and making the change. You're right that I've not experienced anything of "value" that would make me see myself in any sort of "relationship" with any deity. I'm not at all opposed to it, . . . just have nothing to go on.