ARK UNCOVERED?

Published on June 30, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

I'm kind of surprised the writers here at JU haven't mentioned what's going on in Iran with the finding of the Ark. It's all over the "Other" blog sites almost an hourly account from what I saw. One account read "Texas Finds the Ark." Good Morning America had a piece on this yesterday and they seemed very excited about this news.

I'm not surprised and always felt that they would find this ark eventually. I always put the finding of it with "last days" timing because it's just like God to give yet another chance for belief in Him. So none can say....."I didn't know." He's long suffering and does not want any to perish and is always lovingly waiting for those who don't believe in Him to come. Of course I know that even if they found this Ark many will be so busy with their lives they will hardly notice.

June 29, 2006 — A team of Texas archaeologists believe they may have located the remains of Noah's Ark in Iran's Elburz mountain range.

"I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said Arch Bonnema of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (B.A.S.E) Institute, a Christian archeology organization dedicated to looking for biblical artifacts.

Bonnema and the other B.A.S.E. Institute members hiked for seven hours in the mountains northwest of Tehran, climbing 13,000 feet before making the apparent discovery.

"We got up to this object, nestled in the side of a hill," said Robert Cornuke, a member of the B.A.S.E. Institute. "We found something that has my heart skipping a beat."

At first, they didn't dare to hope it was the biblical boat.

"It wasn't impressive at first," Cornuke said. "Certainly didn't think it to be Noah's Ark. But when we got close, we were amazed. It looked similar to wood."

In addition, some B.A.SE. members say, their discovery didn't look very distinctive.

"It looked like the deck of any boat today," Bonnema said.

Long Search for the Ark

The Bible places the Ark in the mountains of Ararat, a mountain range theologians believe spans hundreds of miles, which the team says is consistent with their find in Iran.

The Bible also describes the Ark's dimensions as being 300 cubits by 50 cubits — about the size of a small aircraft carrier. The B.A.S.E. Institute's discovery is similar in size and scale.

"It is provocative to think that this could be the lost ark of Noah," Cornuke said

Throughout history, people have been searching for the Ark to help prove God's existence.

"There's this idea, if we can prove that the ark existed then we can prove that the story existed, and more importantly, we can prove that God existed," said Bruce Feiler, author of "Where God Was Born."

There's more on this... Link

Comments (Page 2)

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 01, 2006

More importantly, does my faith, and further, my salvation hinge on those things?

of course not.

I was just interested in your comment.....kinda felt like you left us hanging, that's all.

I know very well in whom I place my trust

me too.

But I don't feel that a lot of these exercises are very helpful in reaching lost souls for Christ

It depends on what you mean by "exercises." . Reasoning together is good. A good debate is good. It stretches people and makes them think. That's a good thing. As long as it's done in a respectful manner. People are genuinely interested in such things.

As far as Noah's Ark, I'm not debating so much here as given out the Current Event concerning it. I thought that was a good thing....and again, it makes people think. What if it's true?

Dr Guy

on Jul 01, 2006

What if it's true?

See that is where I have to say "Machts nichts". Why? I do believe it is true (that Noah had an ark and saved a bunch of animals). I do not beleive it covered the world, and I do not beleive it was every species (just the common ones in his area). And the flood happened. But it was local, but as in those days local was the world, that was how it was written.

Did God cause the flood? That we will not know in this life. But it really does not matter. For belief is not based upon a flood or a fish. But on faith. God may be the deciding factor, and for many He is. But for me, it is the lessons of the Bible. Not the historical accuracy. So true or allegorical, it will not affect my faith.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 02, 2006

I do believe it is true (that Noah had an ark and saved a bunch of animals).

me too, but hey don't forget the 8 people doc.

I do not beleive it covered the world,

do you know that every civilization has a flood story in their beginning history?

I do not beleive it was every species (just the common ones in his area).

why not? The ark was big enough to hold them and the food needed for a year.

Not the historical accuracy.

well, this helps....

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

"do you know that every civilization has a flood story in their beginning history? "

Did you know that every civilization with a flood story has some sort of flood? Just because all major civilizations undergo some kind of flooding doesn't mean they are all experiencing the same flood.

"why not? The ark was big enough to hold them and the food needed for a year. "

But did it have the ability to house creatures of many different climates, or freshwater fish that would have died from 40 days in salt water, or saltwater fish that would have died after 40 days in fresh water? Of course you can say that God made it work, but then, with that you can't ever lose an argument, can you? To oppose you is to question the power of God.

What should be considered is the fact that we would call a human that would destroy whole civilizations outright, men, women, children and barnyard animals, based upon their overall goodness, a monster. Yet somehow we can't expect that kind of decency from God.

I find it odd that if a father killed his child for the exact motives the Bible credits God with, we'd call him the worst of murderers. Yet, we don't expect God to function at even the flawed level of human kindness or mercy. I credit God with being BETTER than us, not worse.

Rightwinger

on Jul 02, 2006

According to what I've read,

http://www.arkfever.com/ (there are also pictures)

they have done some analysis, and the pieces of black (Noah is noted, in the bible, as having sealed the ark with pitch, which is black) stone (in sharp contrast to the surrounding stone, which is various shades of brown) has, in fact, been found to be petrified wood.
Also, it contains fossilized remains of sea creatures. One large piece which is observable, has been "cut" at a definite 90-degree angle.

Is it Noah's Ark? Who knows. It's nice to think about; it would make a lot of people think, that's for sure.

To Bahu, just for kicks:

Indiana Jones searched for the Ark of the Covenant, and that's a whole 'nother matter altogether.

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

Looking at those pictures pretty much finishes the idea that it could be the ark to me. The wood for Noah's ark would be 5 thousand years old or so according to the young-earth creationist timeline. I defy them to prove that that it is that young, even if part of it is petrified wood.

Even if they prove it is wood, and that wood could be fossilized like that in a few thousand years, wood isn't proof of a boat. The fact that they are finding all those marine fossils makes no sense, either if the water was only up for a couple of months. I don't see "hundreds" of "hand-hewn" timbers; I see rock deposits that look like they might, possibly, be fossilized wood. You can get that here in America.

If you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or so, you might believe this goelogical deposit was once a boat, but then you'd probably believe anything.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 02, 2006

Looking at those pictures pretty much finishes the idea that it could be the ark to me.

hahaaha why am I not surprised?

If you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or so, you might believe this goelogical deposit was once a boat, but then you'd probably believe anything.

then I'm in the line being duped Baker.....and I'm behind alot of men who are much smarter than I.

I find it odd that if a father killed his child for the exact motives the Bible credits God with, we'd call him the worst of murderers. Yet, we don't expect God to function at even the flawed level of human kindness or mercy. I credit God with being BETTER than us, not worse.

First off it was God who gives life and it's only God who is to take it if he so chooses. What amazes me is the wrath of God is always mentioned but the goodness of God is ignored. He is a great loving God but that gets overlooked. I think I know why.

The OT seems harsh to us in light of today's standards. We live in an age where serious sin is not taken seriously. We live in an age were the holiness of God and the sanctity of life have been sadly eclipsed. If we compare the law of the OT with our law of today we would not see the cruelty of God but the mercy of God. We all sin against God and it is regarded s a capital offense in the slightest acts of rebellion we commit treason against Him. Any sin against a perfectly holy and righteous God deserves death. I do not see a bloodthirsty vengeance of an angry God but the long suffering mercy of a holy and loving God. He has been very patient with us.

If we are offended by the scriptures maybe the fault is not in God but in our own corrupt nd distorted sense of values? Maybe it's because we think we are gods?

I wonder what would happen if we called a moratorium on our criticism of the Bible and allowed the Bible to criticize us?

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

"If we are offended by the scriptures maybe the fault is not in God but in our own corrupt nd distorted sense of values? Maybe it's because we think we are gods? "

Or maybe the God of the Old Testament was portrayed by those authors as reflecting their bronze-age values, while later on the authors of the New Testament portrayed Him with their values, and on and on and on. You don't find it odd that God always seems to be portrayed as what we think he should be to best suit us?

As for a moratorium on biblical scrutiny, I think you guys have enjoyed that for a few hundred years, and the Catholic church enjoyed it for a thousand before you. It hasn't been too productive with all the burning people at the stake and such. Now, you just throw yourselves in front of the bus of science.

It's funny that you'd have that perspective considering that your own religion didn't spring up until people STARTED looking critically at the standard interpretation of the Bible. Now, after your interpretation has been untouchable for a few hundred years, we start looking again.

No surprise that the current establishment doesn't welcome it any more than the Catholic establishment then.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 03, 2006

It's funny that you'd have that perspective considering that your own religion didn't spring up until people STARTED looking critically at the standard interpretation of the Bible

and I'm very grateful for thos people who went before me. I've read of Hus, Zwingli, Luther, and others. I especially think Luther was a very brave soul to do what he did. It was awesome that he came from within wasn't it? He couldn't have done that in his own power. He was definitely a man empowered by the HS to do what he did. He was literally shaking in his boots during the diet of Worms. I think he's a hero and I'm not even Lutheran. I don't think he was perfect by any stretch but he was a man born for such a time as this. To go against a powerful ,oppressive institution back then is mind boggling.

Now, after your interpretation has been untouchable for a few hundred years, we start looking again.

what does this mean? I have the same interpretation as the early church fathers starting with the Apostles. The bible is clear that we are to interpret for ourselves, not let man do it for us even tho they want and relish the opportunity to do so. We will be held accountable for what we did with what God gave us.

The bible has been the most loved and maligned book of all times and will still be around long after you and I are dead and buried. Hmmmm kind of sounds like scripture written 3,000 yrs ago doesn't it? "The grass withers and the flowers fade but the word of the Lord will endure forever? " Even ine dark ages, the gospel was a spreading fire that burst out in the open in 1517. There were secret societies all over. Luther just made it legal and respectable doing what he did.

Adventure-Dude

on Jul 03, 2006

I've read of Hus, Zwingli, Luther, and others. I especially think Luther was a very brave soul to do what he did.
I think he's a hero and I'm not even Lutheran.

Wow, so does that mean you think of Hitler as a hero too?

MasonM

on Jul 03, 2006

While I find it very interesting, I'm sceptical as always. I've seen this "Ark discovered" story too many times in the past years. I'll be interested to learn of the results of any archeological dig that may take place there (if any).

Under the right conditions, wood can petrify in a relatively short period of time, so at this point assuming it's age would be somewhat foolish. It could turn out to be nothing more than the ruin of an ancient building.

Adventure-Dude

on Jul 03, 2006

Under the right conditions, wood can petrify in a relatively short period of time, so at this point assuming it's age would be somewhat foolish. It could turn out to be nothing more than the ruin of an ancient building.

I am with you MasonM. Mt. Helens showed us that. From the pictures I saw I am by no means convinced. Yes I agree it is petrefied wood but I wouldn't run around making such claims at the risk of being a complete fool.

bakerstreet

on Jul 03, 2006

"Under the right conditions, wood can petrify in a relatively short period of time, so at this point assuming it's age would be somewhat foolish."

I've seen petrified wood from all over. My dad brought some back from Texas last week. The reddish stone in particular in the photos almost looks agatized. There's a difference between silicification and full petrification, and somehow I doubt you found fossilized sea creatures in the trees near Mount St. Helens.

That's assuming it is wood at all. I've seen a lot of freaky geological features. We have areas here in Kentucky where water washes out slices of softer limestone leaving harder rock standing up in sheets that you would swear were man-made walls. The stratification of a lot of stone looks like wood.

Really, the fast silicification argument could shoot a hole in the argument that this is Noah's ark. If this is due to a phenomenon that can take place over the course of a hundred years or less, then there's no really reason to believe this is Bible-era ancient at all, is there?. The real test of this is whether they'll turn their data over to be independantly verified, or if we'll keep getting hazy "when tested was found to be petrified wood" stuff.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 03, 2006

Wow, so does that mean you think of Hitler as a hero too?

*puzzled* what's the connection between Hitler, Hus & Luther that would make me put Hitler on this list?

MasonM

on Jul 03, 2006

#29 by BakerStreet
Mon, July 03, 2006 4:54 PM

So basically you're saying you will refuse to believe it no matter what scientific study reveals?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!