Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II

Welcome T R, nice to have you aboard EvC.I have a quick query.I know this is a geology forum, and I am not a scientist, but, as universities nowadays seem to favour a cross disciplinary approach, I thought I'd look at this from an archaeological/historical angle.Now, Wyatt says he found Noah's Ark, how did he know it was Noah's Ark and not another 'ark'?Thanks.Brian.

Hi T R,I see from a reply to another poster that you are aware that nothing you posted 'proves' that this is Noah's Ark. It may 'imply' that it is but it doesn't prove it. It is the same with any theory about a past historical event, no historical theories are ever proven, just as no scientific theory is ever proven.So the best that Ron could claim is that "there is abundant evidence to suggest that this MAY be the Noah's Ark mentioned in the intertwined Flood narratives found in the Book of Genesis".But, even if this is Noah's Ark, it doesn't mean that anything else in the Bible is true.It was a pity that Ron had no training in archaeology, history, or theology because he could have collected and presented his evidence in a far more scholarly manner.He could also have saved himself a lot of time if he had been aware, as every first year uni student is aware, that the Bible doesn't claim that the Exodus group crossed the Red Sea, it claims the crossing was at the Sea of Reeds, and since the Red Sea (Aqaba according to Ron) has no reeds than it doesn't matter if Ron found the entire 18th dynasty at Aqaba it is irrelevant to the biblical tale.I just like to remind people that as far as history is concerned, nothing is ever proven, we do not have all the information about any event to come to an absolute conclusion. I find that Ron made some very amateur mistakes when it came to writing up his findings, and in an email conversation with R Rives I found that his understanding of archaeology and history was about as poor as Ron's.I don't know if Ron was sincere, insane,or just a crook, it doesn't really bother me, but I do know that what he presented was neither history or archaeology.Brian.

But, we need to be careful about what you mean by ”Noah’s Ark was true’ because the find would only mean very little in the grand scheme of things.If it was established that this object was Noah’s Ark it really doesn’t mean very much in archaeological/historical terms. All it means is that at one time there was a boat like object built that belonged to a guy named Noah, it proves absolutely nothing else.I am not deliberately nitpicking, I am just stating exactly what the find would mean. It doesn’t mean that the animals went in 2 by 2, it doesn’t mean there was a worldwide flood, it doesn’t even mean that there were 8 people aboard the Ark, and it doesn’t even mean that Noah was a real person!Historians need to look at all possibilities that the extant evidence suggests before making conclusions, they cannot take a text as being true and then go looking for evidence, historical research doesn’t work like that. I am very open-minded as far as archaeology and the Old Testament goes. I know for a fact that a great deal of the Bible is true. I also know that a great deal of the Bible is untrue. But each biblical claim HAS to be scrutinised by the same methodological approach as any other ancient text, it cannot be given special status, as this is not how research is carried out.No scholar is completely objective, but they need to at least appear as objective as they can because overly biased research just cries out for peers to rip it to shreds.There is a great deal of contrary evidence that falsifies the two flood accounts, discovering a possible boat shaped object in a mountain doesn’t really make the flood accounts any more realistic.Finally, I would urge anyone examining the evidence to try and be objective, look at as much as possible from as many different angles as you can, listen to objections and try and be fair when evaluating the evidence. You also have to be reasonable with your conclusions, and keep in mind that miracles are beyond the realms of historical enquiry.Enjoy your stay here.Brian.

Hi Ly,Nice to see you again, how's the leg? Where is the Sea of Reeds? Remind me exactly how many reeds there are in the Red Sea at Nuweiba?Brian.

Of course I did, it is high school level history to know that no historical theory is ever proven. It is the same with archaeology, nothing is ever proven, it is only implied. Archaeology is excellent at disproving something, but not so good at proving it.Welcome to the firt step on the road to understanding what history is. Now you should realise that you can stop saying that Wyatt has found the chariot wheels of the Egyptians involved in the Exodus and start saying something like 'it looks likely that Wyatt.....'. These are all theories Lysimachus. A theory is the best explanation for the evidence available, and it is never proven. Also, a theory has to be falsifiable, there has to be a way to disprove it, if there is no way to do so then it isn't an historical or scientific theory. I have never disputed it, in fact I probably realise this more than most members here.BTW, where is the Sea of Reeds and how many reeds are there at Ron's crossing?Brian.