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.
When one is in the right, one does not easily give up. I'm making myself look a bit wise now, Well, the entire way through the thread I have.
No, you've just been digging a huge hole, yet believing that you have been wise and right. The only posts that have made sense are the ones in which you have agreed with others. Even though their posts have been rather wrong.
Seen as you mimicked my post here is a nice quote for you. (From a real man): “Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery - it's the sincerest form of learning.”
― George Bernard Shaw
This is also hilarious. There is no ark there, and anyone can add something to Google Earth. As that unknown person has, linking you to a religious site, not a scientific one which your link proclaims.
Again, find REAL evidence. You have failed at every opportunity you have been given, and now resort to posting utter nonsense in the hope you may be right.
How many different discredited links do you need to post to get the picture.
No, you've just been digging a huge hole, yet believing that you have been wise and right. The only posts that have made sense are the ones in which you have agreed with others. Even though their posts have been rather wrong.
Seen as you mimicked my post here is a nice quote for you. (From a real man): “Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery - it's the sincerest form of learning.”
― George Bernard Shaw
Thanks Northern Matt. The Indians have a saying: "A hit dog barks."
They found petrified timbers on the sides of the ark going vertically and the anchor stones and other things related to the ark.
It is also the right width and length for the measurements as given in the historically accurate Genesis account.
They found petrified timbers on the sides of the ark going vertically and the anchor stones and other things related to the ark.
It is also the right width and length for the measurements as given in the historically accurate Genesis account.
Eusebius. You are joking. This is the earlier Wyatt -based site. It is boat -shaped, whereas the Ark would be rectangular. This was investigated and all they found was rock. They did find curious stones with holes in (claimed as anchor stones) but they were quite a way from the site. Anchor (stabilizing) stoned would of course have been suspended along the length of the Ark and would be within a few hundred feet if not buried underneath the Ark - not a mile or so away and on top of the ground. The 'other things' apart from some iron nodules dug up, do not exist in connection with this rock outcrop.
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.
Eusebius, I admire your knowledge of the Bible, but not your attempts to make produce factual (let alone 'scientific') supportive evidence for it. We may have to invent a new logical fallacy; 'the 'Picture - tells-a thousand words' fallacy, where a photo is presented and the viewer is supposed to jump to the conclusion 'it's all true'. especially is backed up with a few doubtful claims about archeological artefacts found on site.
That sort of Bible -archaeologist bamboozlement only works on the uninformed and unwary and then only if there is not someone who Noahs better about this stuff to set them straight.
Careful how you respond, old chap...there is an old Hindu proverb...something about a kicked dog howling..
Eusebius. You are joking. This is the earlier Wyatt -based site. It is boat -shaped, whereas the Ark would be rectangular. This was investigated and all they found was rock. They did find curious stones with holes in (claimed as anchor stones) but they were quite a way from the site. Anchor (stabilizing) stoned would of course have been suspended along the length of the Ark and would be within a few hundred feet if not buried underneath the Ark - not a mile or so away and on top of the ground. The 'other things' apart from some iron nodules dug up, do not exist in connection with this rock outcrop.
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)
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:
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.
Did I say it was?
Quote:
Eusebius, I admire your knowledge of the Bible, but not your attempts to make produce factual (let alone 'scientific') supportive evidence for it. We may have to invent a new logical fallacy; 'the 'Picture - tells-a thousand words' fallacy, where a photo is presented and the viewer is supposed to jump to the conclusion 'it's all true'. especially is backed up with a few doubtful claims about archeological artefacts found on site.
The picture does prove it is the ark.
Quote:
That sort of Bible -archaeologist bamboozlement only works on the uninformed and unwary and then only if there is not someone who Noahs better about this stuff to set them straight.
Careful how you respond, old chap...there is an old Hindu proverb...something about a kicked dog howling..
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)
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?
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Did I say it was?
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.
Quote:
The picture does prove it is the ark.
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.
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.
Quote:
I'm not "the uninformed or unwary."
Probably not, you are more the one trying to bamboozle them.
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.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-15-2014 at 11:59 AM..
Eusebius. You are joking. This is the earlier Wyatt -based site. It is boat -shaped, whereas the Ark would be rectangular. This was investigated and all they found was rock. They did find curious stones with holes in (claimed as anchor stones) but they were quite a way from the site. Anchor (stabilizing) stoned would of course have been suspended along the length of the Ark and would be within a few hundred feet if not buried underneath the Ark - not a mile or so away and on top of the ground. The 'other things' apart from some iron nodules dug up, do not exist in connection with this rock outcrop.
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.
Eusebius, I admire your knowledge of the Bible, but not your attempts to make produce factual (let alone 'scientific') supportive evidence for it. We may have to invent a new logical fallacy; 'the 'Picture - tells-a thousand words' fallacy, where a photo is presented and the viewer is supposed to jump to the conclusion 'it's all true'. especially is backed up with a few doubtful claims about archeological artefacts found on site.
That sort of Bible -archaeologist bamboozlement only works on the uninformed and unwary and then only if there is not someone who Noahs better about this stuff to set them straight.
Careful how you respond, old chap...there is an old Hindu proverb...something about a kicked dog howling..
Eusebius, I don't need to add anything more to this, as AREQUIPA is 100% correct. You're deluded.
Just out of curiosity, was Noah a shipwright? Personally, I can't imagine much call for a ship builder in the desert, but I suppose perhaps closer to the shores of the Mediterranean, there might be some call for it.
Yet I think people are simply unaware of the amount of expertise required to build a wooden ship, especially one designed to be rugged enough to survive the storm-tossed seas of the Great Flood. Designing the internal skeleton is extremely problematic and would be almost impossible to do alone. Especially when coaxing solid wood beams to curve in such a way as to make the V of the bow. To build a ship at least 450 feet long in those days would be like building an American supercarrier today ... impossible to do without a team of workers, all of them with advanced ship-building skills. When you then factor in the weight of all of those animals, the food supply, etc., it would require even more skill to give the ark enough bouyancy as to not sink from all of that weight pushing it down into the water.
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?
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.
