Noah's Ark

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

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

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Luke 17:26 is talking about Christ's second coming, not is first coming as a man here on this earth. The Prophets Isaiah and John clearly speak how the world will be "destroyed" once more by pestilences, earthquakes, and the brightness of His coming, and then later again by the "lake of fire" at the end of the thousand years when the saints were reigning with Christ. The world was destroyed by water, and the Lord's promise will be fulfilled that never again will the earth be destroyed by water. After the thousand years, fire will rain down from heaven and the entire earth will be one molten mass of fire, known as the "lake of fire". Clearly Luke 17:26 cannot be referring to Christ's innitial coming, as Christ has already come and is telling His disciples of His future coming. If you had taken just 5 min. of your time to read the whole chapter, you would have easily discerned this. Christ's first coming is not in the least "as in the days of Noah", as Christ did not come to destroy, but to save and die for our sins. There can be no comparison. The only comparison to the days of Noah is Christ's future coming. So no, it hasn't happened yet, because it is still in the future. Upon reading my Bible, I see nowhere that says Christ would come in the lifetime of the apostles.

quote:

---

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.

---

Divinity was clothed in humanity, and this is entirely possible. Our finite human minds may not be able to comprehend it, but I have faith that God knows what he's talking about if He tells us that, I trust it was so. Christ was tempted to use his divinity, of which he had power to use. He could call down not only the power from the angels to snuff anyone out of existence, but He could perform it by His own divinity given to him by the Father. Sadly, you are putting your trust in man regarding science rather than God. Man is a finite mortal individual who comes to wrong conclusions all the time. This God does not do, and therefore one can trust in Him entirely.

quote:

---

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor

---

Thou salt not commit murder....unless otherwise commanded by God Himself. This commandment means an act as such should never be committed without God's command to do so. If you are in the military, and your commanding officer says "not to fire a single shot at the enemy", what does that mean? It means just that. However, does this mean that he cannot command you to do it later? If your commanding officer finally says "fire", they you must obey orders. [quote] Thou shalt not steal...unless otherwise commanded to do so by God Himself. God knows what's best, even though it may not always "seem" to make sense. Additionally, you're forgetting the fact that the Israelites at this time had been overtaxed, overworked, and drained from all their resources into slavery. To spoil the Egyptians is to take back what was theirs.

quote:

---

Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them

---

What foolishness. How can you even dare compare the Ark of the Covenant to a graven image? It's not even near the same thing! Nobody worshipped the Ark of the Covenant, or the cheribums on the Ark! You don't know how silly that sounds. But once again, you're forgetting that outlined rules are always eclipsed by a command of God. No one is to make anything that is in the likeness of heaven, earth, or water outside of the command of God to do so. The Ark of the Covenant was in honor and glory of God, not any other God.

quote:

---

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)

---

This in itself is a huge study which I do not have time to delve into. My father, who was once a minister, has preached on the correct understanding on Faith and Works and how they must work hand-in-hand. Eph. 2:8 and 9 is stating a man is saved through faith, and not of works. In other words, works absolutely mean nothing if the heart is not right with God. One must have faith and believe, and his "works" will show it. Works alone reveal nothing, however, one that does have true faith will perform the works because He loves God. James 2:24 puts it into perspective: "and not by faith only". It's very simple really...by his works he is justified, and not by faith only. Right there it is telling you that faith and works must work together.

quote:

---

Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)

---

You just ain't readin' the whole verse buddy. Let me requote Matthew 5:16 so that you may read it in it's full perspective:Matthew 5:15 --Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.So who is the glory going to? The Father in Heaven, not yourself. This is not to be kept secret. Matt. 6:1-4 is talking about your self, not God's glory. Matthew 6:2 sums it up: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. So you see, these alms are for the glory of man, not God.

quote:

---

Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

---

Yes, that's what you call "the mystery of Hebrew expression" to emphasize and express the great lengths God had to take to try and save His people. Of course, it might do you better if you would look up the original Hebrew words "repent" and "repented" for all the verses and see if they are all the exact same in Hebrew. Sometimes it's hard to translate certain words in English if they are non-existent in English vocabulary. I'll have to look into it, but these are mighty poor and minor reasons to discredit the entire Word of God. Small little seemingly "inconsistencies" like these I believe were designed to test people, for unbelievers will always find room and reason to disbelieve. It's God's way of weeding out those have no respect for His name.

quote:

---

Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father

---

I'm sorry, but I do not read in Exodus 20:5 that the children will be punished for their parents sins. All that is saying is that the children who do likewise as their parents will also be punished. Evil parents heavily influence their children to do evil also, yet it is no excuse, as there have been many children (even a young girl that I know) who's parents do many bad deeds but the children choose to follow God and not follow in the evil footsteps of their parents. However, those children who choose to do likewise, God will also punish. The parents will also be responsible for helping to lead their children astray.

quote:

---

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

---

Yes, when most people call another "fool", it's usually in the wrong spirit, and they are in danger (note: "danger" does not equate damnation) of being lost. For man to call another "fool" is to pass judgement on another, and our mortal bodies have no authority to do as such. Jesus, however, had every right to call people fools and that they are blind if He discerned them to be thus. He could read the thoughts and intents of the heart. He knew exactly where each individual was at--which explains why He knew what Judas would do---betray Him. Jesus was in NO danger in calling another "fool" and "blind". He knew it to be fact.

quote:

---

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

---

The expression is also used that "if you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father, for both the Father and Son are one". Jacob was wrestling with a man was probably either the Son of God or an Angel of God, and in so doing was a way of "seeing God face to face". In other words, he saw his guilt as never before and became truly converted at this point. That verse in no way implies he saw God face to face literally. There needn't be any contradiction between those two verses---but only if you make one.

quote:

---

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

---

It says "he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King" in the 6th hour, but 6th hour of what day? I'd have to figure out the context. Not to mention that it doesn't even say He was crucified in the sixth hour in the second verses. You do realize that even if these were small glitchy errors on part of the writers, it does not negate inspiration? The message of salvation is still there.

quote:

---

Science is based on evidence, not on trust.

---

Science as in itself is good. However, man continuelly interprets science differently. The data of science is outputted by man who did the research, therefore a great degree of trust is going to the researcher "OF" the science.

quote:

---

You are putting your trust in men - the men who were authors of the scriptures.

---

I'm not putting my trust in men, but in God who moved through these men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what we have."Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."--2 Peter 1:20-21