Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark

Hi TR and a hearty welcome to EvC. I met Wyatt a number of years ago and heard him lecture. I have his ark book and in it if I remember correctly he says that likely Moses, being Egyptian educated, used Egyptian measurements rather than Hebrew. According to him, they are different and the Egyptian length comes out right, but the sides would be splayed out from deterioriation, showing wider than would be when the craft were intact.I believe his site is the real thing, but likely there would be little if any petrification, the form being more of an impression in the area caused by the rotted craft being so massive.

You miss my point. It has nothing to do with being an "even number".In your own words, the original measurement was approximate. There is no way to make it "exact" by changing the units. The uncertainty remains the same, regardless of the units. (By the way, what was the uncertainty?)It just makes you sound very unscientific.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Tennessee R The belief or lack of belief has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of my post which deals with the matter of the elements claimed to have been employed by Noah. Since not one of these elements was known to exist until 2000 years later the lack of respect extends not to the beliefs of the people involved but to the sloppy thinking prevalent in the assertions.I try to keep Christians out of my diet these days as they give me gas.

jar said:
"It has nothing to do with whether one is a Christian or not."What has nothing to do with it? My question has everything to do with it. In fact, that was the nature of nearly my whole question. But it wasn't addressed to you, so don't take it personally.I knew Ron Wyatt. And I've known some very wrong men.
And I don't prefer to slander them very much after they are dead.I can state the facts about them, but there are no facts in your calling him "more likely just a snakeoil salesman.""So the Christian answer to your question is Yes, Noah's ark never existed"Now you are calling the Bible a liar. Call man a liar (even falsely) and I can still give you some respect.But call the Bible a liar? I draw the line.But, here, perhaps I should clarify your statement one more time.Based on your previous statement, I can reasonably assume that you don't believe the Bible.Is that true?

Buzsaw said:
"Hi TR and a hearty welcome to EvC. I met Wyatt a number of years ago and heard him lecture. I have his ark book and in it if I remember correctly he says that likely Moses, being Egyptian educated, used Egyptian measurements rather than Hebrew. According to him, they are different and the Egyptian length comes out right, but the sides would be splayed out from deterioriation, showing wider than would be when the craft were intact.
I believe his site is the real thing, but likely there would be little if any petrification, the form being more of an impression in the area caused by the rotted craft being so massive."Hello, Buzsaw and thank you for the welcome. It is amazing that no welcome came from anyone else. Sorry, just couldn't resist.Yes, you are entirely right about Moses likely using the Royal Egyptian Cubit. It is 20.6 inches. Making the boat-shaped object exactly 300. (Some people here still don't get it.)You are right again, when a ship falls apart, it splays. The sides fall out and the top falls in.Well, it is in a mudflow, so (and everyone tell me if this is right) would that cause petrification on the areas that were covered with the mud?

TennesseeR The bible is quite wrong about a lot of things which is to be expected from people who's understanding of the world was very limited and who's society cherished oral traditions as a means of transmitting belief through storytelling and this,coupled with the human penchant for embellishment and exageration, results in fables such as the books of the bible.You however do not have the same right to excuse yourself on the basis of not understanding things so what the blue blazes could possibly entice a grown thinking adult to believe such an obvious myth as representing actual events eh?Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Ringo said:
"You miss my point. It has nothing to do with being an "even number".In your own words, the original measurement was approximate."You still haven't heard what I said. Please read carefully:
Ron Wyatt said he measured this boat-shaped object in the mountains of Ararat using laser measurement and that it measured out to be EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY (And I'm talking about EXACTLY) 300 Cubits long. EXACTLY.Of course, you believe that Ron Wyatt was a liar, and there's a rule that everyone can think and say what they want.
So, maybe you don't believe that Ron really performed those measurements.Is this the case?
Please tell me if you understand what's been said so far.

You're telling me that after laying out there for thousands of years, not a single fraction of an inch of the "ark" decayed/was broken off/moved from its original position? That really sets off my bullshit detector.Edited by DrJones*, : added an f

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

To Sidelined:Finally, I DO understand.You think that the Bible is full of lies.How can I possibly discuss Biblical things with you when you don't believe the Bible?So, obviously, you can't be convicted as a Christian, because you don't know what to believe. For all you know, Jesus did not exist, right?Of course, you are going to call everyone a liar that claims to have discovered Noah's Ark.Finally I understand. This is not so much as a personal attack on Ron Wyatt, as it is on the BIBLE.Thank you for your help in this issue.Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

Tennessee R Since the Egyptian Royal Cubit was not a precise measure there is no way to determine an EXACT measuremnt no matter what you say. Even laser measurements are not exact TR and every measurement has a degree of uncertainty.

Dr.Jones said:
"You're telling me that after laying out there for thousands of years, not a single fraction of an inch of the "ark" decayed/was broken off/moved from its original position? That really sets off my bullshit detector."From possibly not long after the landing (if this is the ship), to sometime in the 70s (either 60s or 70s) the ship was primarily covered in debris. It wasn't until an earthquake recently that it was exposed like it is today.If I remember correctly, Ron said he found broken off remains. But the lenght with the strong keel remained mostly intact, according to Ron. Again, if I recall, there was one large broken section (possibly near the bow?) (Probably tells in the official videos).But, after all, you don't believe in the ark at all, so there's no reason to discuss THIS boat-shaped object.

How can you tell that it was exactly 300 cubits if it's only "mostly intact"? Unless you have the complete and undamaged ark how can you make any declaration that claims to be "exact"? A) please find the post where i said that I didn't believe in the ark
2) Even if I don't believe in the ark why should that stop discussion?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Tennessee R I never said that. I said the bible was wrong about a lot of things. That honest mistakes are made by people who knew no better does not imply {though it also does not rule out} lying. Because the errors in the bible do not depend upon belief. Noah's ark is so terribly full of errors an so many counts that it is only through stubborn aplolgetics and twisted convolutions of thinking that people such as Wyatt have ever managed to con people into belief of such silliness. Again you presume to know what I am thinking and instead of dealing with the issues you skirt around them by bringing in irrelevant concerns. Congratulations! You have succeeded in a post that completely avoided the things rraised in my own. If you do not wish to engage in debate please be silent and allow an actual constructive conversation to tale place.

because the bible is a book that even athiests can read. we don't need to believe it to discuss its content, implications, applications, or even meaning.generally, i've found that particular beliefs actually get in the way of discussing the bible. it's best to approach the bible from a position of neutrality, without any preconcieved notion about what it is, or what it says.

---

You're not paying attention. Here's what you said in Message 264:

quote:

---

... it is approximately 515 feet long, or EXACTLY 300 cubits.

---

"Approximately" 515 feet can not be "exactly" 300 cubits. Is the measurement approximate or exact? It can not be both. I'm trying to tell you that your language is sloppy, not necessarily that your point is wrong. Where did I say anything about Ron Wyatt? I'm talking about your imprecise use of language. I'm trying to tell you that your language is sloppy, not necessarily that your point is wrong. Don't worry about my level of understanding until you can figure out the difference between "approximate" and "exact". Edited by Ringo, : Added more special effects. Percy, where's the "fireworks" button?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC