Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a large body of personal accounts of people from different times and places who have been to Mt. Ararat. And it is their stories I have offer here as evidence for the Ark on Ararat. Now unless all of these people are nothing but bold face liars, we can assume the Ark is there. Certainly the Bible tells us the Ark is there. And we now have pictures from space, showing us some kind of anomaly near the top of Ararat, buried in ice.
And the reason I say the site off Cuba is a city, is because those who made the discovey call it a city. And they now also have pointed out that on some of the stone found below, they have discovered strange writings, of which they cannot yet decipher their meaning. So without question, we are talking about man made structures.
If you had troubled to read my post on the Indian and Cuban 'cities' you'd have seen that whether they are cities at all is far from sure. I mentioned that there were already two huge blocklike 'cities' in the Caribbean which turned out to be natural rock formations. so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
As to the Ark, I know of no ark-find being demonstrated. Just rock formations and a lot of wishful thinking. I must admit that I haven't checked for a while since the Turkish fiasco, but I should have thought any find would have made the news - like the Jesus tomb and the James sarcophagus.
If we are speaking of the Cuba site, and of a city a half mile below the surface of the sea. How did it get there? This would have little to do with a change in a coast line.
I heard a theory that the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean was possibly a dry plain, below sea level at one time in the past. When the icecaps melted, the waters broke through the barriers keeping the seas out and flooded the entire basin.
This is similar to the Black Sea flood that is the likely source of the middle east "global" flood myths.
Quote:
And as I have stated before, becase a story predates another, this is not proof that the Biblical account was copied.
If one predates the other by 1600 years, it most certainly is..
Quote:
Also, the Gilgamesh account states that the mountains were covered by six days of rain. That would be impossible, and that is an obvious error. Where as the Biblical account states not only rain, but the fountains of the deep opened up.
It's hilarious that you find the Gilgamesh flood myth impossible, whereas if it were the Bible that was being questioned you would come up with some extravagant apologetics BS or simply explain it away as "God Did it!". Well maybe ENLIL DID IT!
Of course, both stories are equally absurd, since regardless of the number of days or number of sources for the flood waters, there is still ZERO evidence that such a flood ever occurred.
Quote:
Also, the Gilgamesh account states the Ark landed on Mt. Nisir. Yet to date, no such sighting of an Ark has been reported on any mountain but Ararat. So again, it is the Biblical account that continues to be confirmed.
Likely because unlike you Bible idolaters, there aren't currently any religious zealots who's worldview hinges on "proving" the Babylonian myths to be true..
Yes, Mr. Bluesky. the point about the Babylonian flood is that the 'world' was a flat, circular, plain around Mesopotamia. Flooding of the river was not unknown. A heavy storm would fill the plain up. With a limited number of animals known it would be feasible to stick them in a floating box and keep them alive.
However, by the time it was adapted for the Bible, the World was a lot bigger and the mountains took a lot more covering up. You needed a lot more water. And you had a lot more animals. Even the Jewish version would not have worked, let alone the later version where you had to flood the whole world and you had ten times the animals. The last straw is that now the YE Creationists want to have the dinosaurs on board, too.
I also agree about the sunken city. I read that the whole of Cuba sank at one time so, if it was a city, it would just have sunk. It would not prove a flood. In fact sunken cities do not prove a flood. If the flood waters receded (as the Bible says) they should now be above water again. Sunken cities (should they turn out to be real) would appear to contradict a flood.
I also looked for information about supposed written signs. I could find nothing about it and it would need some closer investigation than just sonar. Any more information you can link, Cambell34?
That isn't imperical evidence of being Noah's Ark, though.
All you know is that there's writing, man made structures, and an anomoly in ice. That could be anything.
All of the accounts that have seen it up close, and there have been a number over the years from different time periods, describe a large vessel having three decks. The Bible states that Noahs Ark setteled on the highest Mountain, of the Mountians of Ararat. How many other vessels do you think we will find up there, sealed in ice?
If you had troubled to read my post on the Indian and Cuban 'cities' you'd have seen that whether they are cities at all is far from sure. I mentioned that there were already two huge blocklike 'cities' in the Caribbean which turned out to be natural rock formations. so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
As to the Ark, I know of no ark-find being demonstrated. Just rock formations and a lot of wishful thinking. I must admit that I haven't checked for a while since the Turkish fiasco, but I should have thought any find would have made the news - like the Jesus tomb and the James sarcophagus.
As I have stated in my last post, they have already video taped these blocks with strange writings on them that they have been unable to decipher as of yet. The Caribbean rock formations had nothing like this.
And the only rock formations of the Ark is not the site I was speaking of. That was a bogus site discovered some years ago. The real site is found 15,000 feet near the top of Mt. Ararat. Numerous eyewitiness accounts describe a large ship like structure. It is not a rock formation, and it is covered in deep snow and ice. It is seen only during a very hot summer.
And such summers are rare on Ararat.
Actually I think that without a doubt many of your so called eye witnesses are bold faced liars, like Ron Wyatt for instance...How many "discoveries" has he made, and how much money and fame has that brought him. How many books have been written about his so called discoveries and sold to the gullible masses?
Without question? Only in the gullible mind would there be no questions regarding the stone formations off of Cuba. Many think it is just a natural formation of stones similar to that found on land nearby, but even if it were a city, what would that prove in relation to the ark myth?
Ron Wyatt died some years ago, yet some of his discoveries have already been confirmed by others. And are you suggesting if someone writes a book, that's proof positive they are bold face liars?
And if the stones found off of Cuba are but natural stone formations. Why have they found strange writings on those stones, which they have yet been unable to decipher?
And if the stones found off of Cuba are but natural stone formations. Why have they found strange writings on those stones, which they have yet been unable to decipher?
Do you have any links or photographs that document this business about the strange writings on the stones near Cuba? I have seen documentaries about uniform looking rock formations which some have suggested looked manmade but I've never heard anything about an unknown language that's been discovered carved into any stones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
