Did they find Noah's Ark in Iran?

[AEON]

What I find particularly interesting is that this "explorer's" team doesn't appear to have included any archaeologists...just lawyers, businessmen, and "ministry leaders".

The little evidence presented in this article isn't enough to make any kind of a conclusion one way or the other from a scientific standpoint...and that's coming from someone who has studied archaeology in the Near/Middle East for many years. That may be the fault of the article's author, but in my experience, it often has as much to do with the lack of any real evidence to begin with. If this really is Noah's Ark, there will be other supporting evidence from an archaeological standpoint.

And this why, as a Christian, I find these sort of "expeditions" embarrassing. I get blasted at Church and Bible Studies because I refuse to “science bash” – especially using “Bad Science” as a weapon. It's like attacking a tree with a wet noodle.

Whether you take the story literally, figuratively, or a mixture (as I do) – the main hope of the story is that people get “the point” the author is trying to make; and that is: we all deserve judgment in this fallen world, but God can and does impart His Grace. Jesus quotes this story not to prove it actually happened, but to point out that God is the author of Justice AND Grace. Both are essential to His character. Jesus personifies both during His lifetime. While Christ is the ultimate Judge, He is also like the Ark –a vessel sent by God to save those that reach out to Him by faith - even though they do not deserve to be saved…i.e. Grace.

 

[Irvine511]

Whether you take the story literally, figuratively, or a mixture (as I do) – the main hope of the story is that people get “the point” the author is trying to make;

so ... and i agree with you that this is probably the best way to approach the Bible ... why do you read this part of the Bible with your eye on "the point" and not on the specifics, but with other parts of the Bible (say, Leveticus) you keep your eye on "the specifics"?

not to beat a dead horse with a stick or anything ...

 

[diamond]

 

[Irvine511]

it's okay, Diamond.

i'm sure they'll find Noah's Ark someday.

and, just to let you know that i am not unsympathetic, i want you to know that i think it was terrible what the English did to his wife, burning her at the stake and all.

just terrible.

 

[AEON]

so ... and i agree with you that this is probably the best way to approach the Bible ... why do you read this part of the Bible with your eye on "the point" and not on the specifics, but with other parts of the Bible (say, Leveticus) you keep your eye on "the specifics"?

not to beat a dead horse with a stick or anything ...

lol - I KNEW this would come up As I pointed out in another thread, God's Moral Laws are eternal. That would be the "point" in citing Moral Laws in Leviticus and not the Ceremonial Laws which were no longer necessary because of Jesus' providing the everlasting sacrifice – Himself, the Lamb of God.

 

[Shaliz]

And this why, as a Christian, I find these sort of "expeditions" embarrassing. I get blasted at Church and Bible Studies because I refuse to “science bash” – especially using “Bad Science” as a weapon. It's like attacking a tree with a wet noodle.

Whether you take the story literally, figuratively, or a mixture (as I do) – the main hope of the story is that people get “the point” the author is trying to make; and that is: we all deserve judgment in this fallen world, but God can and does impart His Grace. Jesus quotes this story not to prove it actually happened, but to point out that God is the author of Justice AND Grace. Both are essential to His character. Jesus personifies both during His lifetime. While Christ is the ultimate Judge, He is also like the Ark –a vessel sent by God to save those that reach out to Him by faith - even though they do not deserve to be saved…i.e. Grace.

I agree. I think these pseudo-scientific "expeditions" come across as desperate, rather than as genuine searches for truth or real evidence of anything. Part of the problem, and this isn't just limited to these sorts of Christian "archaeologists", is that if you go into the situation with the express goal of proving something you already believe to be true, it's hard for others to take your findings seriously. As far as this article presents it, the only evidence in this situation is a substance that may or may not be wood, some unexplained fossils, and some pottery shards.

It's remarks like this that make me laugh:

High above the ark suspect, the team also found wood splinters and broken pottery shards under snow and rock at the 15,300 foot level. It showed evidence that ancients had thought this an important worship site for hundreds—if not thousands—of years.

A few pot shards does not a sacred site make...not to mention that with our current dating techniques and even basic typology, it should be possible to be a bit more definite than "hundreds—if not thousands—of years". There may, of course, be more evidence that just isn't detailed in this article, and there may be a great deal of further analysis to be done, but as presented, this isn't even remotely as conclusive as the article is claiming. Basically, based on what they've found so far, this could be pretty much anything.

 

[AEON]

...why do you read this part of the Bible with your eye on "the point" and not on the specifics...

Just to clarify, I do not ignore any of the specifics in the Bible. Sometimes, the specifics in a story provide the most profound enlightenment. However, the specifics may be interpreted more “literarily” or “figuratively” – depending on a many number of things (i.e. does it fit with the rest of the sentence, chapter, book, Bible; is it pointing to God’s character, what is the historical/cultural context, what is the purpose of recording this event instead of a million other events that could be recorded…) It’s not an easy task for me – that’s why I am in seminary and that is why people dedicate their entire lives to studying the Bible.

That’s why it is still important to get “the point” of the stories, to find the Good News—if you will. Not everyone has the time or the “calling” to dedicate to dissecting Scripture to such details.

 

[Teta040]

I thought Noah's Ark had been "found" in the cleft between the 2 peaks of Mount Ararat during the Carter Administration. The hoopla being that people on a flight over the area had supposeldy seen it lying on its side in a mountain pass, right there. Huge enough to be seen from a plane,that high. Can't remember where I read the story. Books have been writtewn aobut this too.

I guess this is like the controversy over the Shroud..something that even if it is true, should not be "proven". Though for me the Shroud storey is much easier to believe. A team of scentists in 2002 thought they could prove the Shroud a fake within 20 minutes, they had all the newest technology. Instead they were left scratching their heads and more perplexed than ever. Nobody *still* knows how that Image got onto the cloth. It appears to have been burned on. It's much easier for me to beleive that He "burned" it on when He rose, than to beleive that something like Noah's Ark could sit somewhere for thousands of years undisturbed by Man. Maybe people have seen it and wanted to leave it sancrosanct..oh well.....

 

[melon]

lol - I KNEW this would come up As I pointed out in another thread, God's Moral Laws are eternal. That would be the "point" in citing Moral Laws in Leviticus and not the Ceremonial Laws which were no longer necessary because of Jesus' providing the everlasting sacrifice – Himself, the Lamb of God.

And, yet, the difference between the "Moral Laws" and "Ceremonial Laws" are merely semantical. There was no overt distinction, not even in the Bible. Acts 15 does not repeal part of the Mosaic Law; it repeals all of it, minus three obsolete provisions that were never enforced even in the days of the New Testament. But if you'd like to start, I'd suggest cutting out all forms of poultry first, since they likely fall under the concept of "strangled animals."

Regardless, the supposed anti-gay provisions in the Old Testament are all part of the "Purity Codes," which are, traditionally, attributed as being the "Ceremonial Laws." The giveaway is in the Hebrew word, "toe'vah," which signifies a ritual taboo. This word is grossly mistranslated as "abomination."

Melon

 

[melon]

Read the Epic of Gilgamesh. The flood narrative in the Bible is the same story, except whoever wrote the Bible's version added a moral twist and decided to specify the dimensions of the ark. There may have been a period of rain and some flooding, but it probably didn't happen, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the narrative.

Well, and that's it. Portions of the Old Testament are great at ripping off of concepts from their "pagan" neighbors. The OT concept of "an eye for an eye" conveniently finds its place in Babylonian law too.

A legend is a legend, after all, but this one likely has an indirect historical basis. It's believed that these flood myths all originated from the catastrophic event that created the Black Sea more than 5,000 years ago. This is where archaeological evidence can offer proof, where there's evidence of human civilization more than 500 feet deep in the sea.

Of course, no one has really ever looked at the logic of the event, which is impossible. If all that water flooded the Earth, where did it go? The water we have now is the same amount we've had for over six billion years. If we had been flooded, all that water would still be here.

And that's the case for the Black Sea too: an epic catastrophe that drowned a large area below sea level with over 500 feet of water that's still there today. But, honestly, it's just quite amazing how long that event remained in oral tradition before it became a written myth.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

Seriously, how many thousands of years will it take before people get the hint that the Noah's Ark story (and many, many in the Old Testament) is a narrative, a myth. I think the comparisons between the Great Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh and our Christian flood narrative are far more useful and interesting than these hopeless archeological pursuits.

Conversely, how many years will it takes for people to realize that what they learn in college for the first time may not be truth? Seriously, how is it beyond God for the story of Noah to occur? If your method of interpretation allows free form re-writing or out-right dismissal of stories (since you can reduce them to myths or allow re-writes as with David & Goliath), where does it stop? Why on earth would someone believe you when you speak of the resurrection as truth (relying on Scripture), when you can take another passage of Scripture and toss it aside as myth?

Despite the ridiculing of the story of Noah, I believe AEON (thanks for sticking around here, you didn’t get the warmest of welcomes) captures my thoughts on the general topic of these “discoveries”. Since faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see, the presentation of such artifacts (or other relics) is of little value.

 

[melon]

Conversely, how many years will it takes for people to realize that what they learn in college for the first time may not be truth? Seriously, how is it beyond God for the story of Noah to occur? If your method of interpretation allows free form re-writing or out-right dismissal of stories (since you can reduce them to myths or allow re-writes as with David & Goliath), where does it stop? Why on earth would someone believe you when you speak of the resurrection as truth (relying on Scripture), when you can take another passage of Scripture and toss it aside as myth?

Because not everyone's Christian beliefs are predicated on Biblical fundamentalism. As such, whether it be creation myths or flood myths, they are generally seen as having no bearing on one's faith in Jesus.

But, apparently, it takes many centuries, if not longer, for people to realize that part of what's in the Bible may be nothing more than a cultural myth, making the Jewish people no different from any of their ancient contemporaries and their respective creation and flood myths.

Melon

 

[the rockin edge]

Iran eh?

maybe this is a scheme by the Bush admin to give them a reason to invade there.

"GWB: Recovering the Lost Ark."

 

[Teta040]

"history became legend, legend became myth." (sorry Peter Jackson.)

Personally, I think a myth is a true story that has been passed down among living descendants, embekllished or NOT embellished in the long course of the telling, depending on the scale of the catastrophe or type of story. That so many cultures around the world *have* a Flood story is proof of its authenticity. Time passes and local twists of flavor are woven in. But the kernel of it is true.

For me, it's relative, but not much. For example, I'm one of those Christians who believes that the world was created in 6 days, ago, but each "day" was several hundred million years long, since such a epochal period of time is but a blink of God's Eye. And in such a time, the fossil record is perfectly accurate..as is stages of Evolution, Adam and Eve being the final successful stage of His human tinkering. As I also beleive that the father would choose to debut Jesus in the way He did (born of a Virgin, etc, b/c He's been studying other pagan stories and wanted to make Jesus accessible....try that one on for size....if Jesus was similar to Osiris, it may not have been an accident...but with Jesus there was *just* "something more" that made HIm the end of the story...

 

[AEON]

And, yet, the difference between the "Moral Laws" and "Ceremonial Laws" are merely semantical. There was no overt distinction, not even in the Bible. Acts 15 does not repeal part of the Mosaic Law; it repeals all of it, minus three obsolete provisions that were never enforced even in the days of the New Testament. But if you'd like to start, I'd suggest cutting out all forms of poultry first, since they likely fall under the concept of "strangled animals."

Regardless, the supposed anti-gay provisions in the Old Testament are all part of the "Purity Codes," which are, traditionally, attributed as being the "Ceremonial Laws." The giveaway is in the Hebrew word, "toe'vah," which signifies a ritual taboo. This word is grossly mistranslated as "abomination."

Melon

Without going into a long winded sidebar - an understanding of the NT "Book of Hebrews" gives a great overview of what we should take from the OT.

Might I suggest you read it tonight and get back to me. You can send a PM if you like or reply to my other thread - because I am not sure it relates to this discussion - but I would like to discuss it.

 

[melon]

I'll read it. Just not tonight. 12 days straight of work and 30 hours of overtime later, I'm plain exhausted. But I'll make sure to do it after I'm well rested from this long weekend.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

i luv threads like this.

 

[Liesje]

Conversely, how many years will it takes for people to realize that what they learn in college for the first time may not be truth? Seriously, how is it beyond God for the story of Noah to occur? If your method of interpretation allows free form re-writing or out-right dismissal of stories (since you can reduce them to myths or allow re-writes as with David & Goliath), where does it stop? Why on earth would someone believe you when you speak of the resurrection as truth (relying on Scripture), when you can take another passage of Scripture and toss it aside as myth?

What does college have anything to do with this?

It is not beyond God for the the Noah story to be true and this is a large part of what the myth teaches us. (When I say myth, I mean something whose point is entirely truth, but the characters and chronology aren't necessarily historically accurate, not a "myth" in the way the term is used in colloquial speech). Personally, I don't need scientific proof to believe that God is powerful enough to flood the earth. I don't need to know that it did happen simply to believe that it could.

I believe in the resurrection as truth because 1) the life of Jesus has been corroborated by other historical, non-religious writings and 2) the writings of Jesus' life and teachings were not in a narrative, allegorical style.

 

[AEON]

Diamond - I feel bad that you are taking a bit of beating on this. Please understand that I do not take issue with you - nor your interpretation of Noah's Ark.

I was taking issue with the article.

 

[diamond]

it's ok.

we'll all know the truth of all things in our future, and let it be understood i believe the story of noah, the flood and the ark, and the divinity of Christ whereby all mankind may be saved and stand as a witness for him of these truths in this life and the next.

dbs

 

[80sU2isBest]

it's ok.

we'll all know the truth of all things in our future, and let it be understood i believe the story of noah, the flood and the ark, and the divinity of Christ whereby all mankind may be saved and stand as a witness for him of these truths in this life and the next.

dbs

As do I, Diamond.

 

[yolland]

Why on earth would someone believe you when you speak of the resurrection as truth (relying on Scripture), when you can take another passage of Scripture and toss it aside as myth?

Because it's a leap of faith. Isn't it? She may not take everything in the Bible literally, but the belief in Jesus' resurrection, divinity and promise of salvation are Christian non-negotiables, absolute cornerstones of the faith from which everything else (however that's understood) follows. Is that not the case?

You've said before in here that you made a decision at one point that either the whole Bible was true, or else it meant nothing. But did you not, presumably, in fact decide that you believed in Jesus first, with this all-or-nothing philosophy following from there...so that, in truth, your leap of faith in Jesus is "leading" all your other convictions about what the Bible says? If the answer is No, then I'm sincerely puzzled as to what motivated you to decide if the whole Bible were true to begin with, since that's otherwise also a leap of faith (and puzzled as to why you've agreed before in here with posters who stated that ultimately, belief in Jesus is the one true essential). And if the answer is Yes...well then aren't you criticizing her for doing exactly what you're doing, resolving on faith in Jesus first, then contradictorily asserting that unrelated (to that decision) scriptural passages have any fundamental bearing on that matter?

Dunno. It sometimes seems to me that you grant these inconsistency/hypocrisy/irrationality type charges more theological heft than they actually have. Or perhaps you're only trying to satisy your own mind, which is nothing if not rigorously logical. I can understand that, I prefer a systematic approach myself...once the initial leap of faith is made. But when you're arguing with your own coreligionists, fundamental articles of the faith are not what's at stake. And if you're arguing with someone outside that...do you really think they're going to accept your beliefs about Jesus more readily based on internal consistency with your beliefs about the Flood narrative? Perhaps in an emotional sense, a certain kind of person might find that "all-or-nothing" aspect appealing...but that's not the same thing as arriving at faith through logic.

Be patient with me here, lol..I fear I may be falling into some interreligious missing-analogy gap.

 

[AEON]

Because it's a leap of faith. Isn't it? She may not take everything in the Bible literally, but the belief in Jesus' resurrection, divinity and promise of salvation are Christian non-negotiables, absolute cornerstones of the faith from which everything else (however that's understood) follows. Is that not the case?

This is definitely true. Perhaps NBCrusader will respond to you, but I understood his post a little bit differently than you did - I think.

The word "myth" carries a little bit of baggage. In Western Thinking, we generally use it in way that is a bit "dismissive." Sure, we attribute there is “some truth” in the meaning of the story, but we won't go so far as to say the event actually happened.

Speaking for myself, I do believe there was an event that would be considered the "Great Flood," there was a man named Noah, and there was an Ark. I believe God spoke with Noah and used Noah’s faith as a means to demonstrate His mercy. We can debate until we are blue in the face about the details (local versus global flood, did God use DNA samples to preserve the species...etc). But the story is true in a different way than if a myth is true. The story is more than a simple allegory, even if there are bits of allegory in the story. Am I making sense?

For most Christians (I cannot speak for Jews - maybe you could help us understand their interpretation of these types of writings from a Jewish perspective), the danger in accepting these stories as only a "myth" is that one could easily be persuaded that the story of Christ was also only a "myth," a mere allegory (as Joseph Campbell would argue). Yes, you are correct that faith in Christ DOES come before acceptance of the Bible. However, the Bible helps Christians to strengthen their faith and teaches them how to grow into the image of Christ. The Bible has also helped lead many people to Christ because hearing and reading the gospels "ring true" to them - and then the leap of faith.

Bible interpretation is obviously not an easy business…but oh, it is so important. It is also a ton of fun

 

[Liesje]

Thank you, yolland. If I had your smarts and ability to articulate, I may have entered the seminary.

I'd sure take the Bible a whole lot more literally if it were intended to provide a literal, historically accurate account. Just because I approach a narrative as a narrative does not mean I can't appreciate the moral and theological significance that the allegory illustrates. To me the Bible is so much more than simply a written regurgitation of a given string of events. Therefore, I don't NEED to have literal proof and I don't need to know that the Bible is the literal proof to believe in the Holy Spirit and the grace through Christ. I don't doubt anything because I do believe in the infallability (not inerrancy) of the Bible because it is God's word through the Holy Spirit. I don't care if Jericho never fell because of a march, I don't care if Satan never took the form of a snake, and I don't care how many twenty four hour days it took for God to create the world. The fact that a flood never covered the entire earth means nothing to my faith. The fact that a God exists who sent his own self, his own son to nullify forever the necessity of these Mosaic laws and Old Testemant covenants because it is ONLY through the grace of Christ we are saved.....that means something to me.

 

[Liesje]

For most Christians (I cannot speak for Jews - maybe you could help us understand their interpretation of these types of writings from a Jewish perspective), the danger in accepting these stories as only a "myth" is that one could easily be persuaded that the story of Christ was also only a "myth," a mere allegory

Aeon, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus Christ was a myth. The life of Christ has been corroborated by non-religious sources. The writings that detail the life and teachings of Christ were not written in narrative form. Before one's personal faith or religious conviction even comes into play, there's no reason not to believe that at the very least, Christ existed.

 

[AEON]

The fact that a flood never covered the entire earth means nothing to my faith. The fact that a God exists who sent his own self, his own son to nullify forever the necessity of these Mosaic laws and Old Testemant covenants because it is ONLY through the grace of Christ we are saved.....that means something to me.

What an awesome quote.

 

[maycocksean]

It is not beyond God for the the Noah story to be true and this is a large part of what the myth teaches us. (When I say myth, I mean something whose point is entirely truth, but the characters and chronology aren't necessarily historically accurate, not a "myth" in the way the term is used in colloquial speech). Personally, I don't need scientific proof to believe that God is powerful enough to flood the earth. I don't need to know that it did happen simply to believe that it could.

I don't even need to post. This says it all!

I personally believe a flood of some sort happened (whether it was world wide or not is not important to me.) Obviously the writers THOUGHT it was worldwide.

 

[Liesje]

Obviously the writers THOUGHT it was worldwide.

Did he? How obvious is it? Perhaps he saw a regular ol' flood and thought, "hmm...a flood, eh? Now wouldn't THAT be a great way to teach a lesson about God's covenant!"

 

[maycocksean]

Did he? How obvious is it? Perhaps he saw a regular ol' flood and thought, "hmm...a flood, eh? Now wouldn't THAT be a great way to teach a lesson about God's covenant!"

Maybe. Again, I don't think how it happened or if it happened really matters that much.

 

[annj]

if it happened then its a warning to us that someday soon that God is gonna say ...enough is enough you had your chance of running the earth your way.. and all you do is mess it up big time with your wars and letting people starve and your pollution and destroying the planet and not being able to live in peace with one another, despite the fact I gave you the bible with instructions to love one another and how to live your lives in harmony with MY will but you ignore it.. and blew it again..

I destroyed the world with a flood before because of the cruelty
of mankind to one another and filling the world with violence... and here we are the same old situation again

tough luck I am getting rid of you, maybe not by flood but by other means and doing things my way this time.. don't say I didn't warn you because it was in the bible for you to read, not my problem if you refused to believe it

funny enough no one believed Noah either and made a mockery of him when he built the ark wonder what they thought when the waters started coming up to their necks.. uh oh too late..

no wonder Jesus said it would be like that again, people eating and drinking and not taking any notice of what was coming .. wonder was he trying to tell us something that could maybe save our lives?

can you see a pattern here???


Oh well each to their own, we all got a brain and a free will to work things out for ourselves what we choose to believe or think

so I don't mind if you make a mockery of me believing in the biblical version of the flood, I am in good company with Noah
he came out the winner in that