First sighting of Noah’s Ark in 2013? @aig

The archaeologist comments: “As most secular scholars believe the Torah was written between the twelfth and fifth centuries B.C. and the Quran during the seventh century, historians from these periods cannot be maligned for believing the monumental wood structure on Mount Ararat was a maritime construction. Having been inside the edifice, it is understandable that past visitors believed this site to be an ancient barge. Mortise-and-tenon features, cypress wood, angled walls, cross beams at different elevations, and coats of pitch or bitumen are familiar traits in early maritime constructions.”

Archaeologist Responds: Do Prehistoric Sites on Mount Ararat Represent Noah’s Ark? | Jan 18, 2013.

Not quite, it seems. This is an interesting take, although not likely to be convincing to YEC’ers or scholars. Nevertheless, it is an delightful way to start the New Year

Does the use of Noah’s Ark instead of the Cross point to a Historical Jesus?

I don’t like the term, you understand, Historical Jesus, but it is what we have. Maybe a Jesus as the historical basis of the Gospels?

Anyway, I was reading a wee bit and found a reference to the fact that for four centuries, the Cross wasn’t used to depict Christians.1. On of the interesting things is that presenting Noah as a sign is not completely out of the imagination and was somewhat common as a theological image for centuries after Constantine.2

First, you have the Genesis Apocryphon which has Noah sharing some similar traits as Matthew, Luke and John’s Jesus. Then, you have Wisdom which has the world to be saved by a piece of wood. For Justin, this was surely the cross and he went so far as to suggest that the Jews removed it from Scripture in order to avoid giving in to the Christians. However, if you read Wisdom in context, it is the Ark which Noah built (10.4; 14.5). We should remember that the Cross is not a Gospel invention, but found in Paul, and is a disgrace. Even Deuteronomy says it. Paul agrees, somewhat. So, we have a death-on-a-cross tradition from Paul, modified to suggest that Jesus died as/among a political rebel(s) by the Gospels. By the way, I believe that Casey’s argument about the ransom motif in Mark is accurate well enough. The cross is a sign of shame. If it was indeed the symbol of an atoning messiah (v. ransom, don’t confuse the two), surely it would have been better used.

The Ark is used because it is a symbol particular to Israel, to the Jews, following Casey’s ransom motif, I think. Remember, if an atoning  messiah was the original image of Jesus, the cross would have been better used.

Anyway, this is just some thoughts that I am playing with.

  1. Downing, Crystal L., Changing Signs of Truth: A Christian Introduction to the Semiotics of Communication (IVP Academic, 2012), 211-212
  2. Lewis, Jack P., A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Brill Academic Pub, 1978); Viladesau, Richard, The Beauty of the Cross: The Passion of Christ in Theology and the Arts from the Catacombs to the Eve of the Renaissance (Oxford University Press, USA, 2008)

The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology by Phil Senter

According to the young-earth creationist (YEC) paradigm, the narratives recorded in the
biblical book of Genesis are accurate historical records of actual events. Within that paradigm,
the Flood of Noah is considered to have happened as described in chapters 7 and 8
of Genesis. According to the narrative, the rain of the Flood began in the second month of
Noah’s 600th year. The rain lasted 40 days, at the end of which the water level was more
than 6 meters above the height of the highest mountains. All humans and non-aquatic animals
perished, except those that were on the Ark with Noah. The earth remained flooded
for 150 days, but by the end of that period the waters had receded enough for the Ark to
rest on the “mountains of Ararat” (not a single Mt Ararat, as is commonly but incorrectly
assumed). About two and a half months after the Ark came to rest, the waters had receded
enough to expose the tops of mountains. By the end of the second month of Noah’s 601st
year, “the earth was completely dry” (Genesis 8:14, New International Version). The account
therefore describes a flooding event in which water rose for 40 days and receded for
the rest of a single year, during which recession the planet was completely submerged for
150 days.

In 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood. The authors presented the
hypothesis that the Flood was responsible for the deposition of all Phanerozoic sedimentary
strata stratigraphically below the Quaternary. They also questioned the validity of the
stratigraphic principles upon which the geologic column—the sequence of time divisions
to which geological deposits are assigned—is based (see Figure 1). Their publication was
not the first to espouse these views but its popularity precipitated a deluge of Flood-related
research by young-earth creationists in an attempt to find support for the book’s conclusions.
Ironically, that outpouring of research has ultimately led to the falsification of most
of the book’s geological interpretations.

You can and should download the entire document here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Oh dear, this is the going scare the money out of people

First, how dare Jim alert us to another money making scheme – or maybe we wants the crack-team of bibliobloggers to fight this battle too?

Christian Leaders & Scholars invites you to a Charlotte, NC screening of the documentary of NAMI’s Mount Ararat discovery! This coming week! September 17-19, 2011. And meet some of the NAMI explorers.

You can have 5,000,000 JW points for listing everything wrong with that video.

Also, just in time for the mind numbing experience, is the discovery of Noah’s wine cellar.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thomas Verenna drowns Ken Ham’s encounter with the Ark

While I don’t agree with Tom on everything – he should be blue, just saying – I would agree with him just a bit. Anyway, he has a lot of the current history of recent interaction with Noah’s Ark:

Recently there has been an aggressive push by the media to include stories in their coverage about the flood and the Ark.  Here are a few stories from the past few months:

None of this is new.  A Google News search indicates that people have been searching for Noah’s Ark since as early as the 1940′s.

Every attempt has led to failure or abuse of information.  Why?  Because the Ark is not on Ararat.  It’s not anywhere.  It never was.  The story of the Ark is a theological story.  It is not a history account.  Let’s break the narrative down into increments:

You’ll have to visit the link below to see why he says what he says:

Noah and the Flood: The Historical Impossibility « The Musings of Thomas Verenna.

I might not agree with everything, but he has some salient points.

The Ark Park is Scary

Joel brought this place to my attention yesterday.  Just check out this from their FAQ page:

The Ark Encounter is a one-of-a-kind historically themed attraction. In an entertaining, educational, and immersive way, it presents a number of historical events centered on a full-size, all-wood Ark, which should become the largest timber-frame structure in the USA.

“Immersive”??? Are they planning to drown everyone just like in the story???

And again under the question about whether or not it will be an amusement park:

The Ark Encounter will be an immersive, historically themed experience for the whole family focused on having fun while learning about history. It is not an amusement park. It will feature a number of daily live performances, as well as live special events. It will also include “edu-tainment” aspects–educational and entertaining experiences within each attraction.

Daily live performances??? Really???  At the ark park???

You can leave me out.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Cargill on that Peculiar Flood In Genesis 6-9

Also understand that the “slippery slope” claim of “all of the Bible is true or none of it is true” is simply an unnecessary rhetorical device designed to keep readers from doing precisely what scholars do every day: analyze each claim in the Bible on a case-by-case basis. It is not necessary to accept an “all or none” stance towards the Bible.

…..
Also understand that the “slippery slope” claim of “all of the Bible is true or none of it is true” is simply an unnecessary rhetorical device designed to keep readers from doing precisely what scholars do every day: analyze each claim in the Bible on a case-by-case basis. It is not necessary to accept an “all or none” stance towards the Bible.

The Bible and Interpretation.

Well worth the read and the discussion which will follow.

Noah’s Ark is a Myth (again)

From someone who should know…

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

via PaleoBabble » Noah’s Ark PaleoBabble Update.

See here and here for the discoveries. And here for the best blog post yet on this ‘news.’

Carbon Dating the New True Noah’s Ark which has been Found (Again)

That’s right – Carbon Dating is good only if it reveals data under 6000 years old….

In the news today is the newest (re)discovery of Noah’s Ark. I saw rediscovery, because this happens about once or twice a week or so.

CHINESE and Turkish evangelical explorers believe they may have found Noah’s Ark – 4000m up a mountain in Turkey.

The team said it had recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.

It’s not 100 per cent that it is Noah’s Ark but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it,” said Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-strong team from Noah’s Ark Ministries International.

The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, which were believed to house animals, he said. (read the rest here)

Jim West has some thoughts, as does Richard Bartholomew who also has some background information on the groups behind the newest, but not that new, discovery.

I do tend to believe the bible, and I don’t mind so much people spending lots of money trying to prove something – except you know, that they could be spending that same money on trying to actually live the bible. I don’t much care for the hypocrisy of certain things, or the money making machine that this is becoming.

Ugh!

Photo: Noah’s Ark Discovered in Iran?

04/27 – Looks like another Ark has been found – Noah must have had a fleet.

One of the things which I don’t get about Apologetics is their need to ‘prove’ the bible. Do you still need such things if you have met Christ? Do you need proof of Noah’s Ark to justify how you felt the moment you knew you had met the Risen Saviour? What if they never find real proof of the Ark? Does that then invalidate your faith? Is then your faith built on so little?

A team of Christian archaeologists says this rock outcrop on a mountain in Iran could be the remains of Noah’s ark. Layered patterns in the stone (inset) resemble petrified wood, the team says, but other scientists say the patterns are consistent with ordinary sedimentary rock.

Photo: Noah’s Ark Discovered in Iran?.