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.
So no ... unless Noah had A LOT of shipwright training and experience, there is no way he could have even built such a ship. And where did Noah get all of that wood? Chopping down olive trees, perhaps?
Originally Posted by Eusebius According to Genesis the ark was not rectangular.
And this is how you shall make the ark: Three hundred cubits is the length of the ark, and fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its rise. Narrowing you shall make it from the middle, and to a cubit shall you finish it from above. And the opening of the ark you shall place in its side. With nether, second and third decks shall you make it.
(Gen 6:15-16)
Quote:
Not in my Bible. It says 'and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the Ark and finish it to a cubit above'. Nothing about 'narrowing'. I suppose this is translation -shopping again. Which Bible are you using?
An atheist has a bible? A bible he believes nothing therein? "Narrowing" is from the LXX. I'm using the Concordant Literal Old Testament. Now you say something to slam it to look good.
Quote:
Eusebius wrote:
They did find the anchor stones to the ark and other things. The ark originally settled on the mountain higher up but due to earthquakes settled to where it is now. It's not a rock outcrop. The vertical ribs of the ship can be seen in the outer walls.
Quote:
AREQUIPA replied:
A long way away. Too distant to be effective 'anchor stones'. Earthquakes that would bring the ark down to the level of the roack outcrop (it's been tested. Rock is what it is. The videos I saw showed rock that wasn't at all like petrified wood. The 'Petrified wood' shots i saw were associated with the NAMI ark expedition, I believe. In any case, those were shown to be strata, not petrified wood.
Not really. They weren't that far away to be effective. It was petrified wood in very consistent vertical man-made structures.
Quote:
AREQUIPA wrote:
This is not of course the Ark that the Chinese NAMI mission claimed to have found, which is right up above the snow -line. That, too, is now looking just as not -true as this rock outcrop.
Quote:
Did I say it was?
Quote:
I don't know. Maybe I'm confusing you with C34, but I thought it was you who tore me off a strip when I said that Wyatt's ark was just rock and I was told that this Rock outcrop wasn't the right site and it was further up. Maybe it was Campbell 34. If so, sorry. But there is no way this boat - shaped rock is the Ark.
It is the ark.
Quote:
Eusebius wrote:
The picture does prove it is the ark.
Quote:
AREQUIPA replied:
No it doesn't. When it first appeared, it looked like it. Then a lot of enthusiasts galloped off to lok at tit and I watched the progress as the initial expectation of preserved timbers (it's only a few thousand years old, according the the Ark -fanciers) was disappointed by rock and more rock and a few iron nodules hopefully presented as nails. As i remarked earlier - there was no evidence (outside the Bible) for Iron -working 4,000 B, not even in the Minoan civilization with flushing loos - they still worked in bronze - as did everyone else at the time.
The Bible shows historically that they worked in iron and bronze prior to the flood. The picture proves it is the ark and the measurements prove it is along with the anchor stones.
Quote:
AREQUIPA wrote:
And the S American pyramid builders with their ancient -technology stone -working up to the time the Spanish arrived has apparently forgotten not only the Ark story, but also knowledge of any metal, other than the precious ones and copper. As I recall, they didn't even have bronze.
However, back to the rock outcrop...the radar survey showed 'floor' which was a bit odd as it was a 'V' shape. This got them Very excited, but of course, that is quite wrong for a boat. The digging just showed more rock. This is a rock formation. It is not an Ark.
It's the ark of Noah.
Quote:
Eusebius wrote:
I'm not "the uninformed or unwary."
Quote:
Probably not, you are more the one trying to bamboozle them.
Actually you are the one trying to bamboozle them.
Quote:
P.s I had a look at 'pitch' Ge. 6. 16.
An ark (tebat) cubits hundreds three (ammah meowat salos) It you shall make (otah ta-aseh). And this with pitch (Aser wezeh bakkoper) and outside (umihus). A window (sohar) the hight cubits thirty (qowmatah ammah uselosim.
ta-asekh (shall do or shall make) 130 occurrences confirm this reading
aser 'which' (over 4,000 occurences)
wezeh 'this' (51 occurences)
bakkoper
Englishman's Concordance
bak·kō·p̄er — 1 Occurrence
One occurence. - Genesis 6:14
HEB: מִבַּ֥יִת וּמִח֖וּץ בַּכֹּֽפֶר׃
NAS: it inside and out with pitch.
KJV: it within and without with pitch.
INT: within and without pitch
relates to wekaparta
umihus (5 occurrences) without -outside (several 'within and without' occurrences).
so it depends how you read 'Pitch' Bitumen or a slope or narrowing. It seems that Kaphar and kophar are the roots of 'you shall pitch it with pitch' (inside and out) so we are talking of a bituminous coating, not a slope or narrowing.
The coating the the ship inside and outside is found here in this verse:
Gen 6:14 "Make for yourself an ark of sulphur wood. With nests shall you make the ark. And shelter it from the inside and from the outside with a sheltering coat."
An atheist has a bible? A bible he believes nothing therein? "Narrowing" is from the LXX. I'm using the Concordant Literal Old Testament. Now you say something to slam it to look good.
I could only find a concordant Literal New testament. Never mind. I have gone back to the original Hebrew as in my previous post, and it does not look as though it relates to shape, but to material. In all my work I respect what the Bible text says and do not rewrite it to suit what I want to prove. If it had been taken in the generality of translations to mean a tapering off to make a boat - shape, I'm sure we would have all been talking about a boat -shape and not the pencil -box shape the Ark enthusiasts are swearing was perfectly stable - if it had stone -anchors hung underneath.
If so, I don't know why these stone objects would be quite a distance from the mountain.
Quote:
Not really. They weren't that far away to be effective.
I don't even know what this means. If they weren't far away, they would not be these stones. If they were far away, they wouldn't be stabilizers
Quote:
It was petrified wood in very consistent vertical man-made structures.
Quote:
Did I say it was? [/quote'
I was asking rather than telling. The petrified wood was a (claimed) feature of the nami Ark. The Wyatt Ark turned out to be rock and not consistent with petrified wood.
Quote:
It is the ark.
The Bible shows historically that they worked in iron and bronze prior to the flood. The picture proves it is the ark and the measurements prove it is along with the anchor stones.
It's the ark of Noah.
There is not the slightest evidence to support the Bible contention that Iron was worked much before 1,000 B. The picture shows it is a rock outcrop of the wrong shape to be the ark.
Actually you are the one trying to bamboozle them.
The coating the the ship inside and outside is found here in this verse:
Gen 6:14 "Make for yourself an ark of sulphur wood. With nests shall you make the ark. And shelter it from the inside and from the outside with a sheltering coat."
What has that to do with anything? I am looking at the passage (Gen 6. 16) that you claim translates as
"And this is how you shall make the ark: Three hundred cubits is the length of the ark, and fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its rise. Narrowing you shall make it from the middle, and to a cubit shall you finish it from above. And the opening of the ark you shall place in its side. With nether, second and third decks shall you make it. (Gen 6:15-16)"
Bamboozle? I have given the Hebrew and what that means. They don't need to take my word for it, but can check themselves. It sure looks to me as if 'pitch' refers to the coating substance and not to narrowing.
Rather than spend 2 hours on a video trying to prove Wyatt's Durupinar site is the ark, browse the following
After two days of digging (and even using dynamite) inside the "boat-shaped" formation the disappointed expedition members found only "dirt, rocks and more dirt." The official news release issued by George Vandeman, the team leader, concluded that "there were no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made."4 http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html
That isn't plonking 'Yes it is/no it isn't'. It is what they found - dirt and rocks. That's all it is.
I have a book here that is absolutely fascinating; Written by a mathematician
The Pattern & the Prophecy
God's Great Code
by James Harrison
The mathematical structure & design of God's Word is beyond man's capabilities to design.
The Ark of Noah was built on the exact same ratios & proportions as that of a man.
Height to Width to Depth 300 (cubits) to 50 to 30.
It doesn't matter if you use the numbers of the Hebrew text - or the KJV or the NIV length of 450 feet.
Why? did God use all of those different numbers - what do they mean?
Man - Adam is a perfect triangle. Adam (Hebrew Gematria) = 45 = perfect triangle number.
The ark was to be built 300 cubits long (another perfect triangle number) = 450 feet (perfect triangle #!)
There is too much in this book for me to include all of it in this post.
Noah's name is the sum of 3 perfect triangle numbers.
There is so much that can be said about this event; There is not enough room to contain it all in this thread.
For instance the birth of Noah - (not in the bible) - is recorded in the book of Enoch.
Genesis 5 has a list of ten names Adam - Noah - Ten generations - (perfect triangle #).
Using a Hebrew Lexicon; the meaning of those ten names contains an amazing hidden message abut Man's redemption.
- The ark came to rest - "On the mountains of Ararat" - The "mountains of Ararat encompass 3 countries - Turkey - Iran & Iraq.
NOTICE; the day & month that happened; What other important events happened on the exact same day & month?
That is the exact date of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and ... 7 other major events!
If you are like me; I've never heard of perfect triangle numbers. But if you write out the numbers from 1 - 2 billion.............(that's a lot of numbers). There are less than 2,000 numbers that are triangle numbers.
When you discover how God uses triangle numbers all throughout the bible - I'm sure you will be shocked!
I'm going to assume that your facetious answer to my questions means you realize that Noah could not have built the ark. Of course you'll go on believing that he did, but I think I've shown fairly conclusively that your belief is all wrong. One cannot just pick up a hammer and start building an ark of that size with no skill in shipbuilding. Especially in a desert where wood is rather scarce and would be very expensive to import.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me if the pictures I posted proves without doubt that there is intelligent life on Mars and that ghosts are real.
I posted pictures. Therefore, by your logic, I have proven beyond doubt that both of those things are real.
If not, please explain why - and then apply that same logic to your picture of a boat-shaped rock outcropping ... err ... I mean your picture of a petrified ark.
In case you're interested ...
The shape of this formation is like a modern fossilized boat, but it does not fit the dimensions of Noah's Ark given in the Bible (length six times its width). The Bible says the width was 50 cubits (75 feet or 22.5 meters). That means it was rectangular, not pointed at the ends, but you can see the formation pictured is only a few meters wide at the ends, not 50 cubits. This formation's width is all wrong.
Bible-believing geologists have thoroughly examined this object and found it is made of different types of rock. If it were the Ark it would contain fossilized wood, but it doesn't. Some people thought they found fossilized wood in it in the 1980s, but it turned out to be basalt (a volcanic rock).
The streamlined, pointed shape of the rock formation is unlike what Bible scholars and creationist scientists believe the Ark was like. They believe the real Ark had squared-off ends. It only had to float, and squared-off ends are the most stable shape. The Ark was not going anywhere, because it was merely a vessel for keeping alive the representative animals that God sent to Noah for preservation. So pointed ends would not be practical.
Creation magazine published an exhaustive report by respected Australian geologist Dr. Andrew A. Snelling in its issue of September-November 1992. The 13-page report looked at the claims of the late Ron Wyatt, who was the prime lobbyist for this site's being the Ark. Dr. Snelling worked with other creationist geologists who had examined the site, and the overwhelming scientific opinion was that this rock formation is not the Ark.
I'm going to assume that your facetious answer to my questions means you realize that Noah could not have built the ark. Of course you'll go on believing that he did, but I think I've shown fairly conclusively that your belief is all wrong. One cannot just pick up a hammer and start building an ark of that size with no skill in shipbuilding. Especially in a desert where wood is rather scarce and would be very expensive to import.
I'm going to assume you just do not believe the words of Jesus Christ and others who have testified to the event as actually happening.
There is plenty of proof!
Why for instance are there "salt water ring" inside up high inside the pyramid @ Giza - why is that land covered in sea shells.
God is the one who led all animals to Noah if you take the time to read the text. You are inserting too much human reasoning to make points that are not valid.
God is the one who gave him explicit directions ! Some how Noah knew what to do. I'm sure he had questions to ask. But in any case- Jesus testified that: Just as it was in the days of Noah before the flood they were marrying & partying etc. Matthew 24:38
Now we have two choices here: Either Jesus was telling the truth or He was lying.
I can prove He told the truth - You cannot prove he Lied!
I'm going to assume that your facetious answer to my questions means you realize that Noah could not have built the ark. Of course you'll go on believing that he did, but I think I've shown fairly conclusively that your belief is all wrong. One cannot just pick up a hammer and start building an ark of that size with no skill in shipbuilding. Especially in a desert where wood is rather scarce and would be very expensive to import.
Right. And Ford could never build an automobile because he never did before.
Orville and Wilbur Wright could never build a working air plane because they had never built one before.
Noah could never build an over 500 foot long ark because he never did so before.
You are importing your present day understanding of the area into Noah's area approximately 4,500 years ago. That is incorrect to do so. The world was much different back then with HUGE forests of trees much huger and taller than today with a perfect climate world-wide.
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.
