Scholarly Squad Debunks Biblical 'Discoveries'

Let us assume the story about Noah in the Bible is historically accurate. Let us assume Noah built an arc out of wood and the arc came to a stop on or near Mt. Ararat as the Bible claims. It does not follow that the arc would survive to this day. Wooden objects like the arc will deteriorate after being exposed to the elements for over THREE THOUSAND YEARS.

If the any remnants of Noah's arc exist, they will not be in the form of a piece of wood. Perhaps there might be some unusual pottery shards whose presence could only be explained by the existence of Noah's arc.

If the Noah's arc story did happen, there is a good chance an archaeologist may have already stumbled on the remnants of the arc in the form of pottery shards, animal skeletons, or the like. The problem is, this archeologists would reasonably conclude the items they found were of an ordinary origin and they would reasonably not even think of entertaining the idea that the items came from Noah's ark.

Exactly - If the Arc did exist, it would be decayed and rotted beyond recognition and I have high doubts that an expert would even know what they were looking at.

This is why I feel that any findings are a hoax and its just simply not happening.

Originally posted by -Blackout-
Exactly - If the Arc did exist, it would be decayed and rotted beyond recognition and I have high doubts that an expert would even know what they were looking at.

This is why I feel that any findings are a hoax and its just simply not happening.

If the Ark existed it wouldn't have been made from wood, only religous christian retards would think this.
The FACT is if the ark was real it would have been bigger than any vessel we have ever produced.
Thread = FAIL

You know, as much as the evangelicals will block certain thought processes to try to support their position, I feel a lot of the people attacking biblical stories and the such do so as well.

Let's look at this using reason.

Let's presume that the bible does have some form of fact in it. Perhaps not full fact, but some fact. Let's suggest that the ark may have existed, in the sense that one guy (or perhaps several people) and they did put some animals on board.

Now, even though the bible says there was 2 of every animal...does this REALLY seem likely? Presuming this did in fact happen to an extent, wouldn't it have been more likely that say, several animals in the region were put on the ark? Or that many of the animals they use and live with during their daily lives were put on the ark? Why is it that when we're looking at the bible and try to discredit things, we use ridiculous aspects of it to disprove something?

Fact is, we're still finding animals to this day. The odds that every animal, or even a fraction of a majority, was on board this ship is stupid. If you think that this happened verbatim as it is discussed in the bible, you're an idiot. And likewise, if you're USING this to try to disprove the bible, or to disprove the story, you're equally as much of an idiot. Perhaps different flavors of idiocy in different accounts, but you're still an idiot either way.


Let's look at the facts of the story still. A decent sized wooden object was found in some mountains. It appears to be in the shape of a boat. So let us assume this is a boat for a second...

Should we just ignore that one of the last places we should be finding a boat....has a boat?

Of course it likely isn't "Noah's Ark"....BUT THERE IS STILL A BOAT IN THE FREAKIN MOUNTAINS PEOPLE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE!

Last I checked, a boat is used in water. Boats are built in water or at the very least, near it. Mountains are not water. They are in fact some of the highest points FROM water. Soooooo why is a boat away from water? Why is a boat on a MOUNTAIN?

All of the "rational, reasonable, intelligent people" that are foaming at the mouth about the allegations of this being Noah's ark are neglecting to question why the flipping # a wooden craft is on a mountain.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Last I checked, a boat is used in water. Boats are built in water or at the very least, near it. Mountains are not water. They are in fact some of the highest points FROM water. Soooooo why is a boat away from water? Why is a boat on a MOUNTAIN?

All of the "rational, reasonable, intelligent people" that are foaming at the mouth about the allegations of this being Noah's ark are neglecting to question why the flipping # a wooden craft is on a mountain.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

Care to provide some information on these boats found in mountains? All I see is wood being found in mountains and being called boat pieces. You have something better?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Conclusion
It is also nice to see the sheep baaaaing in with their uniformed voices of conformity praising the efforts of narrow minded scholars who seem to be presenting themselves as Judge, Juror and Information Minister on all things.

Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

My, my...a group of philosophers disparaging the veracity of science. And some actually come out of the last century!

Emerson...what else does he have to say?

Emerson discounted Biblical miracles and proclaimed that, while Jesus was a great man, he was not God: historical Christianity, he said, had turned Jesus into a "demigod, as the Orientals or the Greeks would describe Osiris or Apollo" en.wikipedia.org...

So, when these free thinkers also call down the tenets of Christianity...are they still quotable?

Yes Johnnie they are still very much quotable. It goes to show the one's who are really confused. It seems today's people do not know what to believe anymore. The rate at which new data is supplied to people is more than can be processed by individuals. To get the complete overall picture of anything is to discern the objective with the subjective. Don't you really see that science try's to give people a chance just to fantasize that they are gods?

We don't even know who we are anymore. I don't know about you, but when I look around the world and see all the wars, disasters, and all the bad things happening I don't see the good things that science has brought us anymore. People always saying look at all the good science has done for us. What that means to me is look at how much easier science has made my life. Yeah that is true, but look what else science has brought. It not only brought good things, it brought a lot of bad.

That is when people usually say,"Science is just a form of learning. It is how it is used that makes it bad." That is very true also, but giving how mankind is prone to kill for just about anything, how could one who considers himself a true scientist justify sharing those harmful things which science brings?

The destruction of humanity is a story that has, scientifically been proven, to have played itself out over and over in generations past. Look at all the so called myth stories from millennial ago that describe some sort of great catastrophe that wiped out numerous human lives. Is that just myth? I believe mankind is not ready for what science has in store for us next. lol

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by -Blackout-

Originally posted by AndersonLee
Evidence is over rated .

Evidence of what? I have not seen any evidence that the Ark was found.

We'll never find it. Only gullible religious fanatics will believe in stuff like this.

And only people who don't want to believe the Ark is real will not believe even if it was found. You can't find what you don't want to see.

Funny since I do not want to believe in cancer but...

Well, you can see where I am going with that.

I can see where are going with it. I think it goes like this.

I don't want to believe in cancer...but I do. Come on really? lol. Just because we can pick and choose what we believe doesn't make what we pick and choose true or false. It just means we pick and choose.

Originally posted by Alpha Arietis
reply to post by g146541

 

If this find turns out to be a "boat" or fits the description of the "ark"...then the significance is that it was found on Mt. Ararat, the location, as it is claimed by the Torah, that the "ark" came to rest.

Doesn't matter what anyone believes. Whatever it is, it's ancient and by virtue of it's location, it's significant.

Now that is a very scientific point of view.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Conclusion
It is also nice to see the sheep baaaaing in with their uniformed voices of conformity praising the efforts of narrow minded scholars who seem to be presenting themselves as Judge, Juror and Information Minister on all things.

Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

My, my...a group of philosophers disparaging the veracity of science. And some actually come out of the last century!

Emerson...what else does he have to say?

Emerson discounted Biblical miracles and proclaimed that, while Jesus was a great man, he was not God: historical Christianity, he said, had turned Jesus into a "demigod, as the Orientals or the Greeks would describe Osiris or Apollo" en.wikipedia.org...

So, when these free thinkers also call down the tenets of Christianity...are they still quotable?

The thing to keep in mind here is that Emerson was a preacher.... He eventually left the main stream church and founded the universalist church. Then he left religion altogether.

Emerson believed mostly in the tenants of self-reliance and the advice that one should be wary of anyone who is trying to convince you of anything.

Well here is the thing about Emerson. Why would he say that someone, whom proclaimed himself the Son of God, is a great man if he thought it was a lie?
He used the money that he gathered from his churches and then denounced the religion? Now I am seriously starting to think he was not a very good man at all.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Conclusion]

great OP S&F im so sick of christian archeoligists ranting "we found the ark! we found the ark!"
yet each and everyone of these "arks" have been discredited.
what do they have to gain from faking ark finds? ill tell you. to get more people to subscribe to christianity!
dont fall for it people its a huge scam

Originally posted by Conclusion
I can see where are going with it. I think it goes like this.

I don't want to believe in cancer...but I do. Come on really? lol. Just because we can pick and choose what we believe doesn't make what we pick and choose true or false. It just means we pick and choose.

That was my point. Please see the point I was responding to. It makes no sense to say that the only reason some people will never find the ark is because they do not want to believe in it. That just makes no sense. You can not pick and choose, like you said. If an ark is found, an ark is found. If not, not. It has nothing to do with what you want to believe.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

So their mission is to debunk people with "a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other."

They go about with "a spade in one hand and an 'anti-bible'"in the other.

How does this make them different than the people that they are trying to discredit?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Conclusion
I don't know about you, but when I look around the world and see all the wars, disasters, and all the bad things happening I don't see the good things that science has brought us anymore. People always saying look at all the good science has done for us. What that means to me is look at how much easier science has made my life. Yeah that is true, but look what else science has brought. It not only brought good things, it brought a lot of bad.

We are talking about archaeology in this thread, right? A blanket condemnation of "Science" is merely a promotion of ignorance. Science is a methodology used to come up with the best possible explanations for the nature of the world around us. It is a realm within which discovery occurs.

What kind? Depends what you're looking for.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So their mission is to debunk people with "a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other."
They go about with "a spade in one hand and an 'anti-bible'"in the other.
How does this make them different than the people that they are trying to discredit?

Oh please...talk about polarising an issue. There may actually be a degree of latitude between the two, you know? How do you mount a research effort that is determined to find nothing?

In the search for knowledge, you can't come crying when somebody says..."Oh yah? Prove it!"

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So their mission is to debunk people with "a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other."

They go about with "a spade in one hand and an 'anti-bible'"in the other.

How does this make them different than the people that they are trying to discredit?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

The difference is the person with the spade in one hand is looking for answers.

The person with a spade in one hand, bible in the other, already has their answers and are only looking for anything that helps back up those answers.

oh and another pet peeve with these alleged " evangelical archeologists " - what wouls happen if they found something of significance to ANOTHER religion ?

think about that

they are already in the feild with the stated SINGLE purpose of " discovering " the validation of thier own religion it would be rather ironic to say the least if they discovered something that validated another relkigion

what would they do ?????????????????????????

having had personal experience of the dishonesty and lack of integrity of alleged " christian scientists " championing the YEC [ young earth creationism ] and OEC [ old earth creationsim ] from a literal biblical perspective

i hold little hope

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by -Blackout-
Exactly - If the Arc did exist, it would be decayed and rotted beyond recognition and I have high doubts that an expert would even know what they were looking at.

This is why I feel that any findings are a hoax and its just simply not happening.

If the Ark existed it wouldn't have been made from wood, only religous christian retards would think this.
The FACT is if the ark was real it would have been bigger than any vessel we have ever produced.
Thread = FAIL

You both have presented a viable and important thought that deserves some valid consideration and discussion, seeing that a vast number seem to echo your view.

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

We have a few things to look at here.

Gopher Wood and "Pitching" Pitch.

1613 gopher go'-fer from an unused root, probably meaning to house in; a kind of tree or wood (as used for building), apparently the cypress:-- gopher.

So it appears that this Gopher Wood is of the Cedar Family, which, if I remember, doesn't breakdown swiftly when exposed to the Elements.

Looking at the Pitch Matter, we need to seek out two words, since the use of this term "Pitch" is used to both identify an Action, as well as an Item.

The Original Text has Kaphar as the "Action" term, and Kopher as the "Item".

3722kaphar kaw-far' a primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:-- appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation).

3724 kopher ko'-fer from 3722; properly, a cover, i.e. (literally) a village (as covered in); (specifically) bitumen (as used for coating), and the henna plant (as used for dyeing); figuratively, a redemption-price:--bribe, camphire, pitch, ransom, satisfaction, sum of money, village.

So it is Bitumen, which was covering the Gopher Wood.

Bitumen is a mixture of organic liquids that are highly viscous, black, sticky, entirely soluble in carbon disulfide, and composed primarily of highly condensed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Naturally occurring or crude bitumen is a sticky, tar-like form of petroleum which is so thick and heavy that it must be heated or diluted before it will flow. At room temperature, it has a consistency much like cold molasses.[1] Refined bitumen is the residual (bottom) fraction obtained by fractional distillation of crude oil. It is the heaviest fraction and the one with the highest boiling point, boiling at 525 °C (977 °F).

And a Brief History

The use of this organic compound is with natural asphalt or mixtures thereof for waterproofing and as an adhesive dates at least to the fourth millennium B.C., when the Sumerians used it in statuary, mortaring brick walls, waterproofing baths and drains, in stair treads, and for shipbuilding. Other cultures such as Babylon, India, Persia, Egypt, and ancient Greece and Rome continued these uses, and in several cases the asphalt has continued to hold components securely together to this day. Though the existence of the structures have not been confirmed, it was reported that asphalt was used to bind the bricks of the Tower of Babel, and in a one-kilometer tunnel beneath the river Euphrates at Babylon in the time of Queen Semiramis (ca. 700 B.C.), where burnt bricks were covered with asphalt as a waterproofing agent.[2]

So, from this standpoint, I would find it reasonable to suggest, there is a possiblity that Wood encased with Bitumen, especially Gopher Wood, may well withstand the Elements for the last 7000 Odd Years, (as a Reference Figure)

I hope you take the time to re-consider your previous viewpoints, bearing inmind that the Ark, was "NOT ONLY" made of Wood, but also "lined" within and without with Bitumen.

Ciao

Shane



[edit on 6-5-2010 by Shane]

Originally posted by -Blackout-

Originally posted by AndersonLee
Evidence is over rated .

Evidence of what? I have not seen any evidence that the Ark was found.

We'll never find it. Only gullible religious fanatics will believe in stuff like this.

But yet other "gullible" religious archeologists have decoded the exact time line of the Exodus of Moses which is around 16000 BC. Look at the other "gullible" archeologists and they found the lost cities of Sumeria and now it is known fact that the old testament is a bad translation of the seven tablets of creation.

oh and guess what? Those Sumerian tablets also describe a great flood in it. They are about 6000 years old! I am not even religious fanatic and I find that fascinating!

I am a deist!




[edit on 10-5-2010 by dragnet53]

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Now, even though the bible says there was 2 of every animal...does this REALLY seem likely? Presuming this did in fact happen to an extent, wouldn't it have been more likely that say, several animals in the region were put on the ark? Or that many of the animals they use and live with during their daily lives were put on the ark? Why is it that when we're looking at the bible and try to discredit things, we use ridiculous aspects of it to disprove something?

Fact is, we're still finding animals to this day. The odds that every animal, or even a fraction of a majority, was on board this ship is stupid. If you think that this happened verbatim as it is discussed in the bible, you're an idiot. And likewise, if you're USING this to try to disprove the bible, or to disprove the story, you're equally as much of an idiot. Perhaps different flavors of idiocy in different accounts, but you're still an idiot either way.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

Does this mean I get to make up my own interpretations on the 10 Commandments or when I should stone my own daughter as well?

I mean, if you get to pick and choose what is for verbatim or not in certain parts of the bible, then why can't I?

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Martyrdumb]

reply to post by Conclusion



"Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson"

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. ~ Albert Einstein"

Is God real or just your imagination? Both?