It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

new information on noah's ark on CNN

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
otherwise,

There's a thread floating around somewhere here on ATS with that as well ... along with a bunch more geological formations that look just like it. It's not the ark, just a natural common geological formation in that area where more just like it can be found. Do a search here on ATS to find the thread, which has picture's with these formation's around it.

I'm sure there is.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Three 'arks'.



Close up pic, you can see it's clearly a geological formation.

arcimaging.org... (picture too big)

Noah's REAL Ark!




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt This is a joke right? I mean . . 13 years and not visit the site? It looks nothing like a boat. Obviously no more then a natural geological formation claimed to be the ark


I believe the Israelite author of Genesis - Israelites came from Mesopotamia - was paraphrasing the Gilgamish story which is sometimes dated to about 3,000 BCE whereas Genesis was probably first reduced to writing about 750 BCE but repeating oral history going back to about 1,500 BCE. Recent speculation offers the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age as a possible “source” of the FLOOD epic. I have also heard some commentators say that a boat the size given in Genesis built out of wood is impossible. Wood is not strong enough. It is obvious to 10 year old Sunday School kids that not all the animals we know about today could have either been assembled in the area or carried on a vessel the size of the ark. Not to speak of food, etc. Personally, I subscribe to the theory that the Flood Story is an alternate genesis - origins - story of where the Israelites came from. A second (or third) creation myth. (There are 2 stories of the Garden of Eden.)

[edited coding -nygdan]

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   


Personally, I subscribe to the theory that the Flood Story is an alternate genesis - origins - story of where the Israelites came from. A second (or third) creation myth. (There are 2 stories of the Garden of Eden.)

www.africawithin.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

I never thought that there were two different creation myths in Genesis. I did always think it was odd how the story was told as a whole, then I did abit of searching on the topic and found out that they are two different accounts! So, thank you. Learn something new everday.

I did find this on the Noah/Gilgamesh flood awhile back ago.



space.com...



"...and the seven judges of hell ... raised their torches, lighting the land with their livid flame. A stupor of despair went up to heaven when the god of the storm turned daylight into darkness, when he smashed the land like a cup."

-- An account of the Deluge from the Epic of Gilgamesh, circa 2200 B.C.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

(There are 2 stories of the Garden of Eden.)
I never thought that there were two different creation myths in Genesis. I did a bit of searching on the topic and found there are two different accounts! Thank you. Learn something new everyday.


The first story of Adam and Eve is the “standard” story. The second story includes son Cain being expelled from the Garden and going off to a strange land and there, marring some unnamed woman and having children by her. Because of the Hebrew taboo on incest - Cain’s sister? - this story is usually skipped. Modern Biblical critics usually say the Book of Genesis shows writings from 3 different sources, sort of like Isaiah.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST. Many of the ancient peoples in the land of Canaan area practiced child sacrifice. It seems likely the ancient Hebrews also did. The story of Abraham and Isaac may well be the way the old time story tellers choose to describe how the Hebrews stopped child sacrifice. By the by, the ancient Hebrews/Israelites never did conquer all the land in the 1922 British Palestine Mandate so those who argue God “gave” Israel to the Jewish people - the so-called promised land - ignore a lot of contrary history.

[edited italics code -nygdan]

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
well done to CNN they discovered mt ararat. although i think it had already been discovered. hard luck old chap.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
This topic has been brought up before. Will forward a link which has a lot of information. It will take a while to go through the different topics.

Enjoy.

click



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by knowledge23
This topic has been brought up before. Will forward a link which has a lot of information. It will take a while to go through the different topics.

Enjoy.

click


Never have I seen so much absurd religious propaganda.

It'd be nice to find a site for once without any biased opinion.

I also love the hypocrisy of it all too:

A quote from this page: www.anchorstone.com...

''A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in nature could create such a symmetrical shape. A thorough excavation may be made another year to solve the mystery."

Did you read that carefully? 'A Scientist'. When it comes to evolution you can never take a scientist's word for it, as it's mere scientific theory. However, when it comes to something like Noah's Ark, a scientist's word is now apparently the Gospel Truth.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but what exactly would a scientist know about geological formations? Pretty minimal knowledge I would expect. I would sure love to have a geologist on that mountain rather than some random scientist.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherwise
I actually find this site more credible!

Apparently that site is also in a region where the mongols were building mountaintop and hilltop forts, and their forts rought resemble that structure. Also, that structure isn't big enough to hold as many animals as noahs' ark was supposed to, and there was never any global flood.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
As you would be aware there are a number of sites, which we do visit and how many of them dnt have self propaganda. Lets concerntrate on the material and justify the validity rather than concerntrating on his personal agenda.

I am not sure if you have gone through all the notes. I recommend if you do get a chance to do so, as there is a lot. It took me two days to go through it. I cant find a problem with him being a scientist to make a judgemental call. You and me pick up things as we are exposed to things. When you were given a computer, did you get an email account with it? If you did great, but if you didnt because you wanted to learn to use the computer, connect to the net you picked it up. Can I call you an IT professional? I know you dnt claim yourself to be one, but this is an example on the subject. I wont be surprised if a person trained in science could not pick up something which would have been a part of his studies. Geography is introduced to us all in school in a very general level. Proper understanding can be achieved by self study and the motivation.

I hope i have not been offensive as that was not the motive. I recommend to give it a good read, however it is at the discretion of the reader.

cheers



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
it wasn't just the fact that it was a scientist... it's like they used that as conclusive proof that it was noah's ark.

it's basically religious ignorance.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by knowledge23[/I] As you . . be aware there are a number of sites . . Lets concentrate on the material . . I am not sure if you have gone through all the notes . . I cant find a problem with him being a scientist . . You and I pick up things as we are exposed . . Geography is introduced to us in school in a very general level . . understanding can be achieved by self study and the motivation . . I hope I have not been offensive . . give it a good read . . it is at the discretion of the reader.” cheers [Edited by Don W]


Searching for either of the 2 Arks of the Bible is more futile than seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. Neither of what the hunters are seeking ever existed. These were just good stories told around a campfire. Later, someone wrote down the stories. Still later others came to assert the stories were factual and not representational. Hmm?

No one can find the Ark of the Covenant. No one can find the Ark of Noah because, in both cases, there was NO ark. I could not have said that with the confidence I say it today, if I was talking in 1806 and not in 2006. Beginning In the 19th century, the German School of Higher Criticism explored a new way of looking at the Holy Writ. The Bible must be studied as any old, historical document would be studied. Critically. Methodically. Historically. Carefully. Throughly. You can read Albert Schweitzer’s doctoral dissertation found in a short out of print volume “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” See online, www.earlychristianwritings.com...

After Emperor Constantine’s 50 copies - all lost - the oldest compilation of the Holy Writ bound into one volume was Jerome’s Vulgate, c. 405 AD. It was not declared authoritative for the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. It also is lost to antiquity. As with all the Sacred writings, we are left at best with copies of copies of copies. As relates to the Bible texts, I suppose the Catholic dogma of Trent is comparable to the Protestant doctrine of inerrantcy. Both of which are silly as each of which asserts the inerrantcy exists only in the original monographs, none of which exist. Wow! Like angels on a pin? Or are angels male or female? Or neither? Hmm?

Consider. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. We have no 1st century documents in Aramaic. Jesus read the Old Testament in Hebrew. The books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Copies of those books were translated into Latin, and finally, into English, first in the Wycliff bible. 1382. The more famous English language bible is the King James Version printed in 1611. Around 200 - 300 BC, 70 or 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the O.T. into Greek. The Septuagint. Jerome used this version for his Latin Vulgate version.

So here we are in 2006, arguing over what a person said 2000 years ago, in a language and culture that really is foreign and strange to us today. Aramaic. Middle Eastern. There is no hint that any of the sayings of Jesus were put to writing sooner than 20 to 50 years after his death. The record was written in Greek. Some first century writings were authenticated at the instigation of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD at Nicea. Later, the writings were translated into Latin (405 AD) and finally into English. 1382. Into Shakespearean Elizabethan English at that, which is barely understandable to us today.

There was a “Jesus Study Group” in the 1980s that undertook to determine what, if anything, we have a record of that Jesus said. The Study group concluded there is but a phrase or two of the Sermon on the Mount that was authentic. No more. In the same time frame, a survey of U. S. seminaries found 10% of the seminarians did not believe in God. Predictably, the seminaries banned further surveys and closed down the Jesus Study Group. The seminaries wanted “answers” but only the RIGHT answers.

[edit on 3/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Thankyou guys for your response.

However, being a scientist again, how can we confirm that he was not religious. I have attached the lines by article for you guys to give it a read.

The Early Yearswww.anchorstone.com...

The Search for Noah's Ark - The Action Years March 1985

Noah's Ark
Update - June1,2001

Noah's Ark Update - September 19,2001

Noah's Ark Update - April, 2002

Noah's Ark Update

These are long articles and there is a lot of information.

I do agree there are articles and there are individuals who do not believe in Jesus and as been clearly displaced there has been a lot of research done into the authenticity. I however believe that if there is smoke there is fire. I am left quite impressed by the intellectuality of individuals during and around the time of Jesus Christ and the amount of time to create such a fiction. In the last century, Gandhi was a person in whom a nation had a great belief and had faith in his methods. Quite interesting that he too had read the bible and learnt from it. Truely said by Albert Einstein "The coming generations will scarely believe that such a man in flesh and blood walked on this planet"



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

posted by knowledge23:Thankyou guys for your response. However, being a scientist again, how can we confirm that he was not religious.


You know, K23, it is impossible to “prove” a negative. More to your point, I’d say the absence of religious artifacts would go to indicate a lack of religiosity. Just as the existence of such artifacts would go to indicate the presence of religiosity.

From a secular point of view, there are at least 2 questions posed by the Ark of Noah. In any order, was there a flood and is it feasible to imagine all the animals were taken onboard the Ark? I do not think there is any physical evidence for a great flood. Discounting the intervening of GOD, we know chemically speaking, you cannot MAKE and then UNMAKE the amount of water needed for such a flood. The water molecule is just too tough. If you say GOD did it, then really, nothing matters for we are then into the metaphysical and we are not likely to agree on the rules for traveling there.

Whether all the animals were taken onboard may not be required if the flood story is limited to the region of Mt. Arafat. Then the animal part of the story would be possible. But it necessarily eliminates a world wide flood. I have also seen convincing discussions that the inherent weakness of wood prevents making a boat as large as the Ark. Wave actions in the water would break it apart.

Lastly, the flight of P-38s in Greenland ran out of fuel due to unexpected headwinds. Some fellows from GA spent 10 years and $5 million and finally located and recovered one in flyable condition. The plane was found under 100 feet of accumulated snow and had “moved” 15 miles from the point of landing. In about 50 years. If a solid object landed or “settled” on the top of Mt. Arafat, over the millennia the weight of new falling snow would have first covered the object then pushed the it down the mountain side to the snow line. IMO.


I do agree there are articles and there are individuals who do not believe in Jesus and as been clearly displaced there has been a lot of research done into the authenticity [of the Ark]. [Edited by Don W]


I do believe in Jesus, I just don’t believe he was divine or was raised from the dead. I think the religions which claim his name today are homologations of religions from around the rim of the Mediterranean Sea. I do not believe the stories in the Books of Moses. I don’t think Moses was a real person. I don’t think the first 3 kings of Israel were real. And etc. And, by no means would I accept that Jewish people today have a birthright DEED to the old British Palestine Mandate.

But I do support the idea of a Jewish homeland mostly because Christians have done so badly by Jews over the millennia. Especially from 1492. It is too bad - and still unresolved - that we (Christians) consented to the ejection of the lawful inhabitants of the land in 1948-1949. We are still paying for that ill conceived and not thought out move. Our leaders let us down. I attribute the Nine Eleven event more to that than any other single issue. And, because of our reckless and thoughtless response, if we don’t get ourselves under control soon, we are going to bankrupt ourselves.

So what’s all this got to do with the Ark? I see everything is connected to everything. I am not good a compartmentalizing. Sorry about that.

[edit on 3/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMP
Am I the only person alive that thinks the circled area is showing nothing more than a huge chunk of rock???


No, you're not, and in fact it's been described as an outcrop of rock before. I could have sworn the "it's Noah's Ark" story had been thoroughly debunked and I'm startled that CNN reported it.

Marg has been giving a very good summary of the events in the area. The outcrop HAS been visited before (and is no anomaly to the locals)... and it's just rock. Not petrified wood. Just rock.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by MMP
Am I the only person alive that thinks the circled area is showing nothing more than a huge chunk of rock???


No, you're not, and in fact it's been described as an outcrop of rock before. I could have sworn the "it's Noah's Ark" story had been thoroughly debunked and I'm startled that CNN reported it.

Marg has been giving a very good summary of the events in the area. The outcrop HAS been visited before (and is no anomaly to the locals)... and it's just rock. Not petrified wood. Just rock.


Yeah Byrd this is the same "Ararat Anomaly" that's been discussed before. The new interest and specualtion is based on the sat. imagery and documents that the CIA recently released via the FOIA. I guess CNN thought it 'fit for print' because of the fact that the gov./CIA did know of the anomaly and, for some reason, kept the pics and studies classified. Intrique i guess *shrug*

Here's some reading on it, if interested:


www.space.com...

Spysat Photos May Show Noah's Ark
Satellite sleuth Porcher Taylor has his fingers crossed. Later this week, the government is set to release oodles of old Keyhole spysat imagery.
In the batch may be KH-9 imagery taken in 1973 showing what Taylor calls the "Ararat Anomaly" in Turkey - perhaps the remains of Noah's Ark, or just a very strange rock outcropping.


As Taylor of Richmond, Virginia tells it there was "intense debate" for years about that KH-9 imagery among Central Intelligence Agency photo interpreters at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).
In that time period, the CIA conducted routine satellite surveillance over a Soviet missile depot to the east of Mt. Ararat. Some one turned the cameras on too early and acquired Mt. Ararat instead. A major icecap meltdown was clearly visible on the mountain, especially near the Northwest corner of Ararat's Western Plateau at 15,500 feet. What the imagery shows was hotly debated within intelligence circles some 30 years ago, Porcher told SPACE.com.

Meanwhile, Insight Magazine writer, Timothy Maier, last week reported that newly released CIA documents show the search for Noah's Ark worked its way into White House levels in the 1990s. While the declassified documents don't shed light on what exactly has been spotted on Mt. Ararat, they do show just how high up the political chain discussion reached, Maier reports.
-- Leonard David


The old 'debunks' still apply and there's nothing new here that changes any of that i believe. It's news cause the CIA/white house were involved i think... but there's not necessarily much if anything new so far as the ark -vs- geological formation. Looks like a rock to me too... could be interesting if it's man-made, boat or not, but the 'new story' is just the old one AFAIK.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Don..

Thanks for the conversation. It was good, with thoughts being shared at both ends......Got good insight and wish you well.....till we meet again in one of the forum...cheers

K23



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Even if this site was proven to be the fabled Arc, I still don't think that it would cause me to believe in the bible any more than I already do, which is not very much. I can believe the flood part, but nothing much more past that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join