Noah's Ark Has Been Found. Why Are They Keeping Us In The Dark?

Painterz

roadgravel
My question is:

How would someone prove it was Noah's Ark?

A good start might be to find something that isn't just a natural rock formation.

Of course, it's a rock formation - a petrified rock formation, former wood, but not natural.

Chamberf=6
I'm sure these have been brought up, but bear repeating.

Ararat is a volcanic cone with little evidence that it was ever under water during the Flood, indicating that it may have formed after the Flood.

As they left the Ark, the animals would have had to make their way down a 16,950 ft (5,165 m) volcano.

Noah reported distant ranges without mentioning the closer Lesser Ararat.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Not everyone says that the Ark came to rest on the volcano known as Ararat, in fact, Genesis says it came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, aka, Urartu, a large area of land in that part of the world.

ProfessorChaos

wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

What if the found proof you had been lied to about god?

As with "proof" that I had been told the truth, "proof" that I had been lied to would have zero effect on my beliefs.

edit on 12/17/2013 by ProfessorChaos because: typo

So even if they proved there was no god you would still believe what is the logic in that

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Not everyone says that the Ark came to rest on the volcano known as Ararat, in fact, Genesis says it came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, aka, Urartu, a large area of land in that part of the world.

I saw that online, but this thread is designating a specific location. You seem to be defending both the specific location and the much larger area...

Assuming of course it's not a myth (this)

The Ark story from the bible is not an actual truth.
the story of one man saved by God in a boat is told in several different religions.
The one of the oldest versions of the story of "Noah" is in the Mahabharata, whats the point in looking for a specific locations according to the bible?

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

I saw that online, but this thread is designating a specific location. You seem to be defending both the specific location and the much larger area...

Assuming of course it's not a myth (this)

edit on 12/18/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

No, read again what I wrote, and understand it. I reported that the Bible indicates the general area. Within that general area, Ron Wyatt found the exact spot and multiple levels of evidence that what he found was the Ark. In case you ask, yes, I am aware of all the controversy surrounding Ron Wyatt, and some of his findings make me shake my head in wonder, such as the unphotographable Ark of the Covenant. As an ex-Adventist, I am also aware of some of the deceptive practices of the SDA church (Ron Wyatt was SDA). That may be off-topic, but I want you to know where I am coming from...

reply to post by rangerdanger


Aye, it's a natural rock formation. Unless Noah built his boat out of basaltic rock?

Although I've often wondered whether the formation itself gave rise to the legend that Noah's ark landed in Mt Ararat?

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Ron Wyatt found the exact spot and multiple levels of evidence that what he found was the Ark. In case you ask, yes, I am aware of all the controversy surrounding Ron Wyatt, and some of his findings make me shake my head in wonder, such as the unphotographable Ark of the Covenant. As an ex-Adventist, I am also aware of some of the deceptive practices of the SDA church (Ron Wyatt was SDA).

So you are basically cherry picking his "findings" for only the ones you agree with?

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Ron Wyatt found the exact spot and multiple levels of evidence that what he found was the Ark. In case you ask, yes, I am aware of all the controversy surrounding Ron Wyatt, and some of his findings make me shake my head in wonder, such as the unphotographable Ark of the Covenant. As an ex-Adventist, I am also aware of some of the deceptive practices of the SDA church (Ron Wyatt was SDA).

So you are basically cherry picking his "findings" for only the ones you agree with?

Tell me, do you read my posts and then sit back and think about how you can spin what I say?

No, I'm saying that I read the long list of Ron Wyatt's findings, and marvel at how an amateur can find so much more than full-time professionals in the course of long careers. Some of it is easier to believe than some other, and some of it really pushes the envelope. As with the SDA prophetess Ellen White, it takes a long time to decide if it's all genuine, but I'm confident the answers will arrive in due time.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Tell me, do you read my posts and then sit back and think about how you can spin what I say?

Nope of course not. I just think that you sometimes contradict yourself and you can't see that blinded by your version of beliefs.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Tell me, do you read my posts and then sit back and think about how you can spin what I say?

Nope of course not. I just think that you sometimes contradict yourself and you can't see that blinded by your version of beliefs.

I think you're just spinning again. Really, I have come to see that a lot of the people who post in threads like this are a sort of Greek Chorus, drowning out those who are trying to speak the Truth.

Can we get back on topic, pls?

Please stick to the topic and stop the off-topic personal bickering.

thanks

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Certainly. The topic is "why isn't anybody blindly swallowing this story about a mysterious boat-shaped formation that could possibly be mistaken for a mythical ark if you tilt your head and squint?"

If it could be proven, it would be. But it hasn't been, so what are the chances?

I am going to suggest that is definately not Noah's Ark, but more probably
a compound for shepherds flock.

Now let's look at the Noah story with a little more depth..

So, as someone deeply familiar with Biblical cannontation (NOT Religious - EVER!!!)
I'll try my hand at explaining why Noah's story is false... and why this
rock formation is not an Ark;

Long ago as someone whom pays attention to detail...and a natural born inquisitor;
I dissected the Noah fable -

I will do this from memory, so please correct me if I may be wrong..

Noah built an Ark from God's instructions of 'gopher-wood' (?) to the measurements
of 300 Cubits long - 50 Cubits wide and 30 Cubits tall... all which works out in feet
using what we today understand of the Cubit measurement to measure Noah's Ark
at approximately 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall.

God sent (Noah did not collect or go in search of) "TWO" pairs of species of
everything "UN-CLEAN" and "SEVEN" pairs of species everything "CLEAN".

The ONLY humans aboard the Ark were Noah, his wife , their three sons and the sons three wives.

God gushed water from the ground and rain from the sky for 40 days and 40 nights.
(not a simple rain but 40 days and nights of TORENTIAL downpour)
The Ark was adrift for another 100 days AFTER the 40 days, 40 nights.
(zero to do with Global Warming)

That is where Noah's story credibility becomes false, from my point of view.

There is no possible way the Ark, which just happens to be smaller than todays
freighter ship/oil tanker ships, to be able to passage that many species.
(even if we discount all other countries on the western side of the world
as it was unknown in Noah's history)
What of all the food needed to feed the floating Zoo - and ALL the fresh
water needed for such a 140 day journey!
(that would take ANOTHER Ark in itself for the amount of provisions needed)
Then there are only 8 humans aboard the vessel, which according to a small
city's Zoo at todays standards, takes many more than 8 humans to attend.

Now lets look at the Ark's passage:
Ask yourself how it was that the Ark survived floating debris which would have
washed against the Ark causing damage.
How was it that the Ark wasn't smashed to pieces against debris, huge rocks or
even towering mountains..?

None of this is possible even at todays standards of technology, therefore
the Noah's Ark story (pardon the pun) is a WASHOUT!

There is much more to the fable, but all understands the ramifications
that was just explained - Noah's Ark (according to bible standards) not possible!

So we have history claiming Noah saved his family and the species
of this planet, but not other humans.. and yet, the world over
has flood stories reflecting Noah's unfound conclusions.

Most people reflect this knowledge to the Epic story of Giglamesh,
however, the Mayan stele tells a story of not only a great flood,
but also other calamities such as earthquakes and volcanism.


I realize all I did here was to create more questions -
but why follow blindly when the bible tells the story
hidden between the lines.

After all, as the bible quotes: "You have been given eyes for which to see!

*******************************************************************************************

If I may inject a twist to the Noah's Ark theory -

The Ark was indeed round...

Many years ago in ancient history, there existed a 'prior man'
with an advanced technology likened to that of the fabled Atlantis.

Their technology could not save them from what they had learned
through their applications of math and astronomy.
(huge tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanism, asteroid impact, polar tilt, ice age)
We ALL spoke the same language at the Tower of Babel, as our knowledge was
that of a God - cataclysm was enveloped and the species was scattered leaving
the surviving populace to perish from disease and other consequences.

Knowing this, and as an arrogant society such as we are today,
they would not let there lineage fall to a foot note of cosmic dust.

As our scientist would do today if faced with total annilation,
their's was a plan to gather two of everything knowing our planet would
eventually self generate, and re-grow our species after the cataclysm
thereby leaving ancient monuments encoded in math to explain
our mysterious past and illustrious speed in intelligence.
(explaining why we have done this in supposedly only six thousand years)

All planet species was gathered and then cryo-genetically frozen and
stored in the round Ark to be sent away from the planets destruction and
brought back at a later date to replenish the earth through test tube and
eventually invitro method once a suitable creature was created.
(explaining the EVE/ADAM recreation)

As their species was as ours and do to jubjectual bombardment of
solar radiation, are unable to sustain extended periods of inter
galactic space travel, developed a robotic custodial servant to
succeed such a monumental endeavor.

This 'servant' was created to endure and recreate it's masters, teaching
as they went.
We today would see the servant as a synthetic robot built with a exo carbon fibre frame
hyrdaulically activated humanoid commanded by internal nano-bot computer chips
with timers and fibre optics draped in a grey synthetic heat absorbing
(transferred to an energy perpetual motion machine) latex skin.
Humanoid slightly in appearance and yet not frightening, not quite four foot tall
with large dark eyes for solar power operated internal batteries.

This was OUR heritage, left by our ancestors, to resume a class one civilization
in a relatively short expanse of time.

They are 'ours', bequeathed to from our distant ancestors, so indeed -
the NOAA ARCC theory is correct, but with a modern version view.

Nation Of One Analogical Astrological Atonement Recovery Cohabitation Crisis

So yes indeed the Arcc was round with two decks and a top level.


Just my personal theory.

All apologies if I derailed the thread or insulted someone's religious view.

..and now back to regular viewing.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Certainly. The topic is "why isn't anybody blindly swallowing this story about a mysterious boat-shaped formation that could possibly be mistaken for a mythical ark if you tilt your head and squint?"

If it could be proven, it would be. But it hasn't been, so what are the chances?

edit on 18-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What are the chances? Let's see.

Evenly-spaced ribs of petrified wood.

Iron rivets.

Petrified animal dung.

Petrified antlers.

Ground-penetrating radar indicating internal bulkheads.

Correct area.

Correct dimensions of the artifact.

Pointed bow, blunt stern...um, like a ship?

Carved anchor stones scattered for miles.

I think there's sufficient evidence to at least say "Maybe..." but not one will except those who already believe it.

Lazarus Short

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Certainly. The topic is "why isn't anybody blindly swallowing this story about a mysterious boat-shaped formation that could possibly be mistaken for a mythical ark if you tilt your head and squint?"

If it could be proven, it would be. But it hasn't been, so what are the chances?

edit on 18-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What are the chances? Let's see.

Evenly-spaced ribs of petrified wood.

Iron rivets.

Petrified animal dung.

Petrified antlers.

Ground-penetrating radar indicating internal bulkheads.

Correct area.

Correct dimensions of the artifact.

Pointed bow, blunt stern...um, like a ship?

Carved anchor stones scattered for miles.

I think there's sufficient evidence to at least say "Maybe..." but not one will except those who already believe it.

No it is not, go and read my post in page 4, i am an expert in this field, i have seen and touched this rock formation, this is 100% not a boat, have you been and touched it? if you have not you are defending the word of others who have an agenda, i have no agenda but to tell you it is not a boat of any kind, and is 100% natural rock.

reply to post by HumAnnunaki

There is much more to the fable, but all understands the ramifications that was just explained - Noah's Ark (according to bible standards) not possible!
So we have history claiming Noah saved his family and the species of this planet, but not other humans.. and yet, the world over has flood stories reflecting Noah's unfound conclusions.
Most people reflect this knowledge to the Epic story of Giglamesh, however, the Mayan stele tells a story of not only a great flood, but also other calamities such as earthquakes and volcanism.

Good points. Another thing that points to multiple localized floods throughout the long existence of humans on Earth, not one huge gigantic flood covering the entire planet.

reply to post by FlyersFan


thank you for saying that. i have always argued that point. in order for noah and his sons to have repopulated the earth, first cousin had to marry first cousin. there had to be some brother and sister action going on as well. and, one of noahs sons and or wives had to be black, asian, american indian, etc.... and where are the records of their travels to their new lands? how did they cross the atlantic? and what about australia? that is a big one!

I've heard of this guy, and buy into some of his stuff. However, you had me interested until:

ghostfacekilah00
Wyatt found that the crack started at the base of where he believes Jesus' cross was placed (there was an Earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death that split the Earth and destroyed the Jewish holy of holies). Wyatt had the blood analyzed by Israeli scientists, who found that the blood was still alive and contained only 24 chromosomes, 23 from the mother and one Y from a father. Apparently an angel told Wyatt that the world would not know of his discoveries until "the antichrist institutes the Sunday law." Those who won't believe will have no excuse. God is good.

VERY far fetched, and I'm a believer. Generally when people run around saying God or angels spoke to them these days, they're crazy or possessed. He's officially a nutter.

Lazarus Short

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Certainly. The topic is "why isn't anybody blindly swallowing this story about a mysterious boat-shaped formation that could possibly be mistaken for a mythical ark if you tilt your head and squint?"

If it could be proven, it would be. But it hasn't been, so what are the chances?

edit on 18-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What are the chances? Let's see.
Evenly-spaced ribs of petrified wood.

Which have turned out to not be petrified wood. though I found the implication that the ability to create glued laminate beams by a Bronze Age civilization to be pretty entertaining.

Iron rivets.

From a "ship" allegedly built long before Iron was smelted? You're god truly is great then.

Petrified animal dung.
Petrified antlers.

Yes because those mountains aren't known for sheep or any other animals so there should be no fecal remains let alone any other remnants of animals

Ground-penetrating radar indicating internal bulkheads.

The GPR was not done properly, how can you show bulkheads when you're not surveying the entire "structure" and only following taped out lines? this is simply sloppy half @ssed pseudoscience at its worst. The taped lines should have been much closer together, they are working with incomplete imaging.



Correct area.

Who's correct area? There are several reported or alleged final resting places of the ark and several alternate Ararat locations including one claimed to be in Saudi Arabia

Correct dimensions of the artifact.

That depends on which measure of cubits you're using. In Egyptian cubits its a near match, using the cubit measure that was used at the time the Hebrew texts were compiled you're going to be way off. Egyptian cubits are either 20.6 or 20.8 inches where biblical cubits are 18 inches.

Pointed bow, blunt stern...um, like a ship?

Like a ship that was not described in the OT or Hebrew texts. I was always taught that the Ark was rectangular.

Carved anchor stones scattered for miles.

carved anchor stones that are from the area the alleged ship was found, not from Mesopotamia where the ship was supposed to hav been built.

I think there's sufficient evidence to at least say "Maybe..." but not one will except those who already believe it.

There's sufficient evidence to say that I might poop my pants at some point today but I'm pretty confident that ill be OK.