Naoh's Ark or hoax?

I'm sure many of you have heard the latest. There appears to be yet another claim that Noah'a Ark has been discovered.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

Of course, as the article points out this has not been verified by the scientific community. However, if this is a hoax, it is an elaborate hoax. They have film of the 4000 year old structure buried in ice as well as aritifacts brought back. Film of the structure can be seen in the web site above. All I can say is, time will tell.

So what if this structure is validated authentic? What if there is a structure of such massive proportion on top of Mt. Ararat with wood dating back about 4000 years ago? It seems to me that this has the potential of being the greatest archeological find in human history because it would combine the well known historical accuracy of the Bible with the supernatural stories within it. After all, how could such a structure get to the top of the mountain? Anyone?

It would seem to me that if this is verified as authentic, it would put a nail in the coffin, once and for all, of all those who scoff at the literal nature of scripture.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm sure many of you have heard the latest. There appears to be yet another claim that Noah'a Ark has been discovered.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

Of course, as the article points out this has not been verified by the scientific community. However, if this is a hoax, it is ...[text shortened]... il in the coffin, once and for all, of all those who scoff at the literal nature of scripture.

Stop being so daft.

Even if the wood is dated to around 4,000 yrs, you're still left with two problems.

1. Where's the evidence for a global flood? And more to the point, where's the evidence for a flood around Mt Ararat that could leave a boat 4,000m above sea level?

2. Where's the genetic evidence that mankind was reduced to only 8 people 4,000yrs ago?

You need more than a bit of wood up a mountain to 'put a nail in the coffin once and for all'.

This might interest you also -

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/noahs-ark-found-insider-randall-price-now-says-discovery-may-be-a-hoax/19459208

Originally posted by whodey
I'm sure many of you have heard the latest. There appears to be yet another claim that Noah'a Ark has been discovered.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

Of course, as the article points out this has not been verified by the scientific community. However, if this is a hoax, it is ...[text shortened]... il in the coffin, once and for all, of all those who scoff at the literal nature of scripture.

=====================================
It would seem to me that if this is verified as authentic, it would put a nail in the coffin, once and for all, of all those who scoff at the literal nature of scripture.
=======================================

No it wouldn't ! It would FUEL the skepticism.

All it takes is one little Phd. to write a book saying that the Martians flew that thing in and you're back to square one. (Let me say that I doubt that it would be persuasive to those who do not want to believe the Bible).

As for me, I have little interest in the hype around this Mt. Ararat matter. The Bible says Noah's ark landed on the MOUNTIANS (plural) of Ararat. That covers I believe thousands of square miles of possibilities.

Secondly, I would rather assume that timber, if left, was depleted by people centries ago, either for legitimate reasons or not. Wood would be scarce aftera flood like that. Any available beams of timber would be highly in demand for building.

Anyway, if it turns out to be a hoax I won't be crushed. Chalk one more up for media hype. I would not advize any young Bible believer to base any spiritual reliance on this media hype.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm sure many of you have heard the latest. There appears to be yet another claim that Noah'a Ark has been discovered.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

Of course, as the article points out this has not been verified by the scientific community. However, if this is a hoax, it is ...[text shortened]... il in the coffin, once and for all, of all those who scoff at the literal nature of scripture.

Strewth. There is absolutely no way that wood has been preserved in ice for 4000 years. You don't seriously give that tosh any credence do you?

But the part of your post I find most risible is where you talk about the 'well known historical accuracy of the bible'. Reference me one reputable historian who agrees with this ridiculous statement.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Strewth. There is absolutely no way that wood has been preserved in ice for 4000 years. You don't seriously give that tosh any credence do you?

But the part of your post I find most risible is where you talk about the 'well known historical accuracy of the bible'. Reference me one reputable historian who agrees with this ridiculous statement.

Just one?

Josephus.

Originally posted by whodey
...the article points out this has not been verified by the scientific community...

...and it will not in the future.

Originally posted by jaywill
Just one?

Josephus.

You might as well suggest St Paul! When did Josephus last (or ever) publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

Originally posted by jaywill
Just one?

Josephus.

There is a well known scientific discipline known as Biblical archaelogy. These are not religious zealots but trained archeologists who have identified the Bible as being a reputable source of information to extract clues from before going on digs. For example, there were no records of the Philistine people having existed except from Biblical texts. So these archeologists read the accounts and estimated about where they should have lived according to these accounts and they dug and unearthed them.

Having said that, what we need desperately are a team of Biblical archeologists to the Ark site. That would cease out disputes as to its existence, I would think.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Stop being so daft.

Even if the wood is dated to around 4,000 yrs, you're still left with two problems.

1. Where's the evidence for a global flood? And more to the point, where's the evidence for a flood around Mt Ararat that could leave a boat 4,000m above sea level?

2. Where's the genetic evidence that mankind was reduced to only 8 people 4,00 ld/article/noahs-ark-found-insider-randall-price-now-says-discovery-may-be-a-hoax/19459208

Nope. You are faced with other unexplainable questions that would need to be resolved before ridiculing the Biblical account.

Why is such an emormous structure erected at such a high altitude? Do they really expect us to believe that humans dragged all that timber up to the mountain top and then constructed a two story boat? In the article I provided someone made the accusation that Christians did this, but there were no Christians 4 thousand years ago. At best, these Jews would have had to have found timber from 4 thousand years ago, hired trained mountaineers to drag it up the slopes of Mt. Ararat and then construct it undetected.......and then bury it in ice. LMAO!!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
...and it will not in the future.

I would think that if this site is not a hoax, it will provide for an interesting dilemma for the scientific community. Specifically, it would provide a dilemma for those who are advosaries of the Biblical texts, such as Dawkins, for example. If you have a vested interest in bashing a particular religion, then this presents a problem. In addition, it would provide dilemmas for those scientists who proport that a global flood would have been impossible or even for those who proport that such an Ark could never have been built 4 thousand years ago and sustained life for 40 days. After all, there are entire professional reputations on the line here. Most importantly, there are entier belief structures that would have to be forced to be altered. I think that this would be the most unsettling aspect to all this. In fact, it would not surprise me if some tried to hinder any evidence that might be dragged off the mountain, if not destroyed altogether.

Originally posted by whodey
There is a well known scientific discipline known as Biblical archaelogy. These are not religious zealots but trained archeologists who have identified the Bible as being a reputable source of information to extract clues from before going on digs. For example, there were no records of the Philistine people having existed except from Biblical texts. So the ...[text shortened]... rcheologists to the Ark site. That would cease out disputes as to its existence, I would think.

I'm not arguing that the bible isn't a valuable source of historical data, I'm laughing at the notion of the 'well known historical accuracy of the bible'. Still laughing. Am emailing links to this thread to a number of associates so they can have a laugh too.

Originally posted by whodey
Nope. You are faced with other unexplainable questions that would need to be resolved before ridiculing the Biblical account.

Why is such an emormous structure erected at such a high altitude? Do they really expect us to believe that humans dragged all that timber up to the mountain top and then constructed a two story boat? In the article I provided so ...[text shortened]... the slopes of Mt. Ararat and then construct it undetected.......and then bury it in ice. LMAO!!

You ever seen 4000 year old timber? I have. Ice-preserved, bog-preserved, sea-preserved. That wood in that video is categorically not 4000 years old.

Originally posted by whodey
I would think that if this site is not a hoax, it will provide for an interesting dilemma for the scientific community. Specifically, it would provide a dilemma for those who are advosaries of the Biblical texts, such as Dawkins, for example. If you have a vested interest in bashing a particular religion, then this presents a problem. In addition, it woul ...[text shortened]... ried to hinder any evidence that might be dragged off the mountain, if not destroyed altogether.

This is religion, so if you want to believe in whatever event described in the bible, then you can freely do so. But it isn't science.

This piece of wood was found in a location 4000 meters above the current sea level. Science haven't confirmed that such a global flooding catastrophe took place 4000 years b.cr.

This is not science, even if it is a part of your religion.

Originally posted by whodey
There is a well known scientific discipline known as Biblical archaelogy. These are not religious zealots but trained archeologists who have identified the Bible as being a reputable source of information to extract clues from before going on digs. For example, there were no records of the Philistine people having existed except from Biblical texts. So the ...[text shortened]... rcheologists to the Ark site. That would cease out disputes as to its existence, I would think.

================================
There is a well known scientific discipline known as Biblical archaelogy.
==================================

I am not a real follower of archaelogy, biblical or otherwise. I barely have time to explore the unsearchable riches of living through Jesus, in the New Testament. But I am not at all intimidated.

I read some time ago an article on archeology which was a verification of the existence of something long held to be a mistake or fabrication on Luke's part. His gospel spoke of a pavement upon which Jesus stood when He was examined by Pontious Pilate. This pavement was said not to be discovered until the latter 20th century. Whereas before its absence fueled skepticism about the Gospel of Luke, its eventual discovery confirmed the reliability of Luke's description of Jesus' trial before Pilate.

Now, I do not regularly follow archeaology. But forget about it, if you want to intimidate me that it disproves the Bible.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were also a verification of the accuracy of copies of the book of Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls took the wind out of the sales of the skeptics who maintained that excessive copying of the Hebrew Bible books has rendered the known extant copies unreliable representations of the original documents.

The copies of Isaiah found with the Dead Sea Scrolls greatly refuted that textural criticism.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You might as well suggest St Paul! When did Josephus last (or ever) publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

============================
You might as well suggest St Paul! When did Josephus last (or ever) publish in a peer-reviewed journal?
================================

C'mon, don't you think Josephus has been "peer reviewed" enough by fellow professional historians for centries ?

His statements about Jesus argue for the historicity of Jesus. And that to the point that some wise guy skeptics now argue that his statements were fabrications fictitioously put into his mouth by, you guesed it, Christians !!