Noah's Ark

How many admins have to warn you before you take any notice?Is suspension the only approach that you will respect?

So the value of the scrolls seems to stand by me, I still think that there are better things to do than to examine the scrolls peice by peice. But the fact still stands that most of the common Bibles of today have completely different meanings to what the original Hebrew text said. I, as well as Specter, really want to learn about this.

Big News!!!!!
Discovery of noah's ark finally in 2004!!!The Ark has been buried under the ice atop the perpetually snow-covered Mount Ararat. A secret has been kept by a Kurds' family over 4 generations in respect of the location of the suspected Arks' remain. In 2004, the first Chinese expedition led by The Media Evangelism Ltd entered the military base and filmed the Ark's remain in close distance. The footage of the Ark's remain, including the supernatural experiences of the crew on the elevation of 4,200 meters of Mount Ararat will be shown to the public through this documentary film coming to the local theatres this Easter.
And I really watched them close to the anomaly and watched the broken wooden beam.The Days of Noah - HomeThe following link to the pictures they taken (on the bottom), you can see there's hole in the snow.
The Days of Noah - HomeThere's more, you can watch the DVD they filmed and more surprise, I really shocked when I watched it.

Nelson, not only is this off topic for this thread, but you have already posted this information in another thread. Stop it.

I looked at all of the pictures but there was no evidence to be found in the photos. If and when you have some specific evidence that is reported in a peer reviewed journal and subject to independant scientific confirmation, please present it to us. Until then messages like this seem to be simply spamming the web to market your product. That is not an acceptable practice.Do not continue posting links to either site until you have some evidence to share.

---

Hi Nelson,I'm interested to find out what this "Big news" really is. And why on earth does the first photo in that link show the Durupinar site?--That site according to Wyatt Archaeological Research is believed to be the most-likely remains of the ancient Ark. Why would they put that photo if they think the Ark is on Ararat? Strange...

quote:

---

And I really watched them close to the anomaly and watched the broken wooden beam.

---

There are countless stories of wood being found on Mt. Ararat, and everyone of them have turned out to be bogus. I do not believe Noah's Ark is on Mt. Ararat, but rather the "region" or "mountains" (plural) of Ararat, like the scripture says. At least with the Durupinar site we have something substantial to work with. The Subsurface Interface Radar equipment at least tells us there are numerous lines of metal that crisscross throughout the entire 515 foot boat-formation (but nothing detects without). I'd say there is a lot more credence to the possibility of the Durupinar site being that of Noah's Ark than the endless fables and stories of an Ark being on Greater Ararat.And for the rest of you guys, I know what you're thinking....yes, you're right, I still haven't posted my topic on Noah's Ark like I promised. I'll tell you what though, I did put up a post 87 pages worth at another forum. Some of you here probably know which one I'm talking about because I've seen your name(s) show up in that forum. However, I ask you kindly not to post the link to it if you do know what I'm talking about. Reason being, I want to redo it for this forum, as there are a tons of quotes from forummers there that wouldn't make sense here. It's all a convoluted mess that wouldn't jibe with the forums here, so I have to take time and revamp the article so that it is readable on these forums. Plus the forums there allow a lot more photos per post. I'll get to reformatting the entire article for this forum one of these days....so please be patient. I've been away from home quite a bit and have had other priorities in life.But anyway, it's good to see you all are still here and doing well. ~ LysimachusThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-06-2005 05:58 PMThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-06-2005 06:06 PM

Here's what I love about you Floodies. You go through incredible lengths of bending and twisting ideas and facts to fit around one story and...It's plagerized!You want the Bible to be literally true, but they original writers pillaged the story of Noah and the Flood from the Babylonians!The Bible is not "literally" true. It's not supposed to be!The story of Noah is not about facts, it's about Truth. That's "Truth" with a capital T. Jesus told parables, stories which had a specific message to impart. We are not supposed to take those stories on face value, we are supposed to take the message.The water in Noah's flood is not the water that comes from your sink. It's WATER the symbol. The arc is not a boat, it's a symbol. This is not a history lesson, it's a lesson in morality, in faith, in obedience.When you take the lessons of the Bible and make them into "facts" you run into two very big problems.1) You completely lose the whole point of the story!!! You cheapen the message, changing your religeon into nothing more than a history class.-and-2) You run the risk of being proven wrong. That's endangers your entire believe system.The very first post of this string suggests that the great flood happened about 2000 years ago.So, around the time of Jesus' birth (give or take 100 years), there were exactly what? 6 people on Earth total? Just Noah and his family.Where did everyone else come from? Everyone in the entire world is descended from Noah in the last 2000 years? All the Chinese, and the Native Americans, the Africans, the Eskimos, the Romans? The Greeks?Exactly how many kids did Noah and his wife have? How many of them were either sleeping with their sisters or nieces?When you hang your hat on a "fact" you better be sure it can take the weight of your hat

No no Nuggin, that's not how it works, no matter how you try and get around it.We don't believe that the flood story was borrowed from the Babylonians. We believe it was the other way around, and that these stories that come from the Babylonians and Assyrians only HELP to testify to the validity of scripture. I'm sorry, but I can't accept these wild assumptions that the Bible writers pillaged the stories from them. Sounds far fetched and out of line. There is no reason to believe that, at all.Little do most people know, but the Babylonians and Assyrians acquired the story of the great flood from the legends that revolved around the Urartu region near Dogubayazit. But I'm not hear to debate about the archaeological site at this time.I hate to tell you this Nuggin, but you're completely out of line to be associating the flood story with the parables told by Jesus. The Bible makes many clear distinctions between what is a parable or lesson versus a factual story. The word "parable" is actually used countless times in association to the stories Jesus told, so the Bible leaves no room for error on this part. If we could count just ONE word that associates the flood story as a "parable", "allegory", or "symbol" in scripture, then there would be good reason to speculate thus.But, we have nothing that should lead us to believe so. It tells you straight forward "this happened", and that is that. Nothing more, nothing less.And yes Nuggin, the whole world descended from Noah and his family. What you are doing is calling God a liar, and the Bible a book that missleads millions of people across the globe. You think God would want to deceive us? That is why he has been so gracious to us as to tell us what is "symbolic" and what is not for the most part.No, no, the flood is not symbolic, nor a parable. It is a literal fact....a literal fact that also interprets itself into a wonderful lesson for the lost race of man. Just like Jesus' appearing in the clouds and the lake of fire after the thousand years will be factual, so was the great flood. If Jesus' second coming will be factual, there is no reason to disbelieve the great flood as factual--as that was a supernatural event not even near the extensive magnitude that Christ's second coming will be.

---

~Lysimachus

Except for, of course, the Bible authors' documented histories of plagarisim and borrowing, sometimes even from each other.Other than a consistent history of plagarism, no, there's nothing to indicate that they may have plagarised a legend. Of course not. Aside from the obvious physical impossibility of the story, which would be a dead giveaway for most persons, and has been, throughout history. Right. Because Noah was simultaneously black, white, native american, asian, polynesian, middle eastern, and all the other races of man. He would have had to check more checkboxes on the Census than Tiger Woods!Ah, right. And every person in every civilization is decended from Noah's family; including those civilizations that existed concurrent to the "Flood" time and, mysteriously, recorded no distruption in their cultural development or record of artifacts. Weird, that.

If that were true would we find that the age of genetic lines is the same for all creatures on earth? No he is not calling GOD a liar. Believing in the Flood would be calling GOD a liar. Yes, the Bible has mislead millions of people across the Globe. Well you can have it one of two ways. If the Bible is literally true then GOD is a liar and deceiving us. If the Flood happened then GOD is a liar and deceiving us. If the earth is only 6000 years old then GOD is a liar and deceiving us.OR, GOD is not lying and the Bible is wrong.Pick your position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry to disagree. But it is you, and your fellow literalists who are calling God a liar. You are asserting that what God wrote with his own hand, what he carved into the rocks and fossil beds, is a lie. You are asserting that truth can only be found in some particular writings of men. I'm wondering why flood literalists have not commented on Message 3.

Nope, these two verses sum it up:Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man."Matthew 24:37 "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."Notice the word "as". For those of you Christians, If you believe in Christ's second coming as a literal event, those verses clearly tell us "as the days of Noah". Christ's second coming would never be compared to a prior event that was not literal.I take the Bible just for what it says.

And the only reason why people like to think God is a liar, is because they put their faith purely in science. Little do they know, but science can be a tool utilized and weilded by Satan when not interpreted the right way.There are millions of ways to interpret scientific data. The arguments never end. They go back and forth all the time.We cannot put our faith in science. But the Word of God. We can trust what the word of God tells us, not science. Science is only a guideline, but when it "appears" to go out of line from the scriptures, we must throw science out and choose scripture above all other.Simply put fellas. There is nothing to querrel about.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-13-2005 12:17 PM

The perfect unassailable ignorance of the fundamentalist. Absolutely unbreachable by reason because reason was not employed to arrive there.Truly, Lys, you are a magnificent specimen.

This was said in a pre-scientific era. Jesus was making the common assumptions of his time.It makes no sense to say that Jesus came to us as a man, and was tempted as a man, and yet to assume that he was omniscient as a man. If he was omniscient in his presence on earth, then he was not a man and could not have been tempted as a man. If he was not omniscient, then he would have made many of the pre-scientific assumptions that were common at that time. On my reading the Bible is quite clear, that the second coming would occur within the lifetimes of the apostles. Yet, as best I can tell, it didn't happen.