|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's ark found ?!? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2444 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Rahvin,
There are many many differences however between a classic such as the Iliad and the Bible. The Bible was written by 40 authors over a span of thousands of years. If you really get down and study the historicity of the Bible and archeology, it's fascinating and nothing shy of miraculous the amount of evidence that verifies the history of the Bible. The Iliad was written around 800 B.C. and the earliest copy that has been found was dated around 400 B.C, thus a 400 year time gap. 643 copies have been found of the Iliad. Contrast that with the NT where the earliest copies found were around 70-100 AD (some say 50 AD but I'll error in caution) with time gaps of only 50-225 years with 5366 copies/fragments having been found. The NT will stand up historically with any classic written such as Herodotus' "History", Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and Tacitus' "Annals". Obviously the Dead Sea Scrolls were a huge find for the OT along with the Lachish Letters which completely verify almost the whole book of Jeremiah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Now, take what can be verified historically and separate it from what makes the bible a religious book. What have you got? You've got no christianity, that's for sure.
edit:
it's fascinating and nothing shy of miraculous the amount of evidence that verifies the history of the Bible. you are still welcome over at Evidence for the Biblical Record Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan "Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I suspect you've been misled by the apologists.
quote: Now, this is an example of what I mean. I note that you don't even mention the time gap between the supposed writing date of OT books and the earliest manuscripts. The apologists are already cherry-picking (especially as they want to pretend that some OT books are hundreds of years older than the evidence suggests). There are no NT manuscripts from the 1st century, at all. The earliest is the John Rylands papyrus from 130 AD - and that is a tiny fragment. You have to go a lot later before you can find a complete book. And the gap between the date of writing and the copies we have is not even an especially important criterion ! It helps assure us that the text has not changed, but it tells us nothing about the reliability of the original text. Again, this is cherry-picking. The Bible does well on this criterion - although not well enough for them as we can see by their exaggeration - so they exaggerate the importance of it. Apologetics is supposed to be a defence of Christianity. Too often it is an indictment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Just because Jericho actually existed doesn't mean that the Biblical story of its destruction was in any way accurate, any more than the existence of Troy makes the Illiad an accurate historical document. And that's really my only point. Even if this is the Ark, so what? Until there are the remains of every single animal on planet earth, it would remain to be a small, insignificant victory for creationists everywhere. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The Bible was written by 40 authors over a span of thousands of years. If you really get down and study the historicity of the Bible and archeology, it's fascinating and nothing shy of miraculous the amount of evidence that verifies the history of the Bible. Why would that be any more miraculous than say Strabo or Pliny the Younger? The bible is only a bible because a group declared it "The Bible." It otherwise is a collection of books, most being independent of one another, some being contemporaneous.
The Iliad was written around 800 B.C. and the earliest copy that has been found was dated around 400 B.C, thus a 400 year time gap. 643 copies have been found of the Iliad. Contrast that with the NT where the earliest copies found were around 70-100 AD (some say 50 AD but I'll error in caution) with time gaps of only 50-225 years with 5366 copies/fragments having been found. The NT will stand up historically with any classic written such as Herodotus' "History", Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and Tacitus' "Annals". But so what? I don't know anyone claiming that the books of the bible are forgeries. I think everyone agrees that they are indeed old, ancient if you will. They just don't believe the stories that defy physics or credibility.
Obviously the Dead Sea Scrolls were a huge find for the OT along with the Lachish Letters which completely verify almost the whole book of Jeremiah. It was a huge find insofar as you could say that the books contained within the scrolls (most not being found in the bible) were not created contemporaneously. Scribes have existed for thousands of years, transposing what they believe was the Word of God, preserving it until now. As far as dedication to the literature, I am impressed. Beyond that, it doesn't tell me anything substantive and it certainly doesn't give it authority just because its "old." "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PsychMJC Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 36 From: Modesto, California Joined: |
What that doesn't mean is that this confirms God, nor does it confirm that every animal on the planet was housed on an ark, nor does it prove that it actually is the Ark described in the bible, or anything else
Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your best suit. Let's try dealing with what I wrote shall we?I said it would help to persuade me, not prove the existence of God or confirm the Bibles accuracy. Obviously the shoddy archeological work done so far does nothing to prove that it is the actual Ark. What I was RESPONDING to was the question posed by slevesque. IF this is what they SAY it is (which is the BIBLICAL ARK, not some wooden boat that survived a flood), what are the implications. Now you want to know what the implications are if it ISN'T what they say it is, only something LIKE what they say it is? I didn't know I was responding to that question as well. A huge flood happened. It did.
Oh gee thanks, I didn't know that.
What likely could have happened is that after the flood occured (which was localized and not global) is that a bunch of people saw a large ship resting on the mountain. People in that area then wrote about it (look in Sumerian lore) and it spread the word. Through word of mouth the story then synthesized all over the Middle East, Asia Minor, and the Mediteranean. They each put their own little spin on it. I don't believe the Ark actually existed. If you want to start a thread for the two of us to toss ideas back and forth about HOW the Ark myth was created, go ahead. I have some ideas and it might be interesting. It would have nothing to do with the OP however.
So, even if it is the ark, it doesn't mean that the stories about the The Ark are necessarily true. Think about it. Think about what? The Ark is, as far as I have been able to find, a ship that should not nor could not ACTUALLY function. Now you are changing the scenario from THE Ark to just some boat. Here I thought the question in the OP was about the ACTUAL ARK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
The NT will stand up historically with any classic written such as Herodotus' "History", Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and Tacitus' "Annals". I think not. Just take a look at Herod. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PsychMJC Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 36 From: Modesto, California Joined: |
The bible is an historical document that has proven a lot of itself true. I don't care how many foam-at-the-mouth atheists say otherwise. That being said, not all of it is true. You know a lot of foam-at-the-mouth atheists that think everything in the Bible is false? I don't really know ANY. Not to say that they don't exist, they are just morons. In fact, of all the vocal atheists I've ever read or read about, I can't think of ONE that says that EVERYTHING in the Bible is fiction, none based on fact. But why would that matter? Isn't lots of fiction is based on reality? Real places. Actual people. We don't think that just because the main character in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was an actual person then so too must vampires be real. That doesn't make it a "historical document", it makes it fiction based on reality. Nothing special about that. Unless you want "historical document" to mean any document that has some touch of reality to it. What I like best about this response is that you don't go babbling on about real arks and fake arks and fishing boats in mountains when Flyer75 assumes basically the same thing I did. You let his reaction to the OP be based on, *GASP* the OP! Not some goofy version of as you did when responding to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
thats pretty much what i thought when i saw the structure frozen in the ice....how the hell they gonna get that out??
Well it will be interesting to see if any professional archeologists go up there and give it a go, I hope they do but I doubt they will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2
|
There are many many differences however between a classic such as the Iliad and the Bible. The Bible was written by 40 authors over a span of thousands of years. If you really get down and study the historicity of the Bible and archeology, it's fascinating and nothing shy of miraculous the amount of evidence that verifies the history of the Bible. The problem is the major events that aren't supported by evidence. Things like a global flood.Things like 6-day creation. Things like, oh, the entirety of Exodus. Many (note - NOT all) of the Bible's more mundane historical claims have been verified. But those do nothing at all to support the extraordinary claims. It's not a matter of how many copies have been found. It;s a matter of what events can be verified. Some things can be verified by finding 3rd-party references in separate documents (things like who ruled where when, etc). Other things cannot be verified with documentation alone. It doesn;t matter how many people say or said there was a worldwide flood, for example, if the evidence of the Earth itself (as well as the existence of cultures that predate the supposed flood with no historical break) proves conclusively that no such thing ever happened. It doesn't matter how many copies of Exodus one finds, for example, if no Egyptian documents ever show anything remotely resembling the traditional Hebrew account, no evidence can be found of a massive population of nomadic Hebrews can be found in the desert they supposedly wandered for 40 years, etc. Each individual event in the Bible is a separate claim that x happened. Mundane claims require only mundane evidence. When independent sources all agree, then mundane claims are verified with a decent level of confidence because mundane claims exist in harmony with the pre-existing picture of history we've already developed from the sum total of available evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they diverge drastically from a well-supported current understanding of events. The extraordinary claims of the Bible (the flood, 6-day creation, the existence of a deity, the existence of an afterlife, the resurrection of Jesus, the curing of leprosy, mass Hebrew slavery in Egypt, the Plagues of Egypt described in Exodus, the escape and wandering of the Hebrews, the conquest of Canaan, etc) are not well supported....by either corroborating documentation or archeological\geological\biological evidence. The validity of some of the mundane claims in no way whatsoever gives additional validity to the unsupported and separate extraordinary claims made, just as the valid mundane claim in teh Illiad that Troy existed in no way supports the existence of a man who was invulnerable to harm except in his heel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
Greek mythologies had literally hundreds of authors. And if you ignore all the magic and miracles, many places and events mentioned in those mythologies turned out to be true. There are many many differences however between a classic such as the Iliad and the Bible. The Bible was written by 40 authors over a span of thousands of years. If you really get down and study the historicity of the Bible and archeology, it's fascinating and nothing shy of miraculous the amount of evidence that verifies the history of the Bible. What does all of this prove? That works of fiction often have elements of truths to them. I just read a book called As the World Dies by Rhiannon Frater. It's about zombie apocalypse. She used real towns and cities in her novel. Her story even mentioned real famouse people. But obviously, there never was a zombie apocalypse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
[qs]What I like best about this response is that you don't go babbling on about real arks and fake arks and fishing boats in mountains when Flyer75 assumes basically the same thing I did. You let his reaction to the OP be based on, *GASP* the OP! Not some goofy version of as you did when responding to me.
Are you referencing when I asked you why when you said that if it was the actual Ark
quote: You're right, people probably would start going to church over it. I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of doing so based only on that. The reasons are specious. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I just found a book published in 1975 saying that the Ark had been located using photographs from Skylab.
Since then the discovery of the Ark seems to have become an annual event. The mountains of Ararat must be positively littered with enormous gopherwood boats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The bible is an historical document that has proven a lot of itself true. I don't care how many foam-at-the-mouth atheists say otherwise. Hmmm, 17 years ago, as a born-again Christian, I started reading the Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR - an evangelical Christian publication) and began to appreciate just how little of the Bible has been archaelogically verified. I found this both exciting and deeply troubling - exciting, because it meant there was so much to potentially discover, and deeply troubling because it meant that countless Christian teachers had unwittingly pumped me full of complete bullshit regarding just how well archaeology corroborated the Bible. But perhaps you are aware of far more pre-capitivity Biblical-archaeological finds than me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
I'm a skeptic on this one. I've contended with ICR and John Morris who thinks it's up on Mt Ararat. His dad made several expeditions up the mountain. It would be impossible for cows, horses and other animals to leave the ark on rough terrain.
The Biblical record says, "mountains of Ararat which implies the foothills. Ron Wyatt's discovery appears to make more sense since there's the large ballast stones nearby and the terrain is such that departure would be no problem. According to Wyatt, one of the ballast stones has ancient inscription of 8 people and a boat which perhaps some later people likely inscribed. I've seen both Wyatt's stuff and David Fassold's video. David seems to be quite sensible and his video appears to be objective. David was with Ron on some of his latest expeditions. I met Ron Wyatt at a College where he showed us his slides of his 17 expeditions in the region back before he died. I have his book and have seen some video. I don't necessarily buy all of Wyatt's claims. I believe the formation is simply an impression in the hillside which the ark left in the terrain. I'm thinking that the reason little if any evidence of iron is with the ark or much else is that after landing, most of the ark, including the iron parts were dismantled to use for building structures to live in, etc since they would have landed with need for supplies. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024