What would the Discovery of Noah's Ark do?

The Ark explorations are something my husband has been interested in for awhile. He keeps up with many of the men who are involved. Their enthusiasm and courage seem to know almost no bounds. Their funding seems, at times, to be inexhaustible! However there are only a couple of possible sites left on Ararat which have the potential of being Ark sites, as the other, more commonly known and referred to sites, have all been shown to be rock formations of various types.

Something has occurred to me, and I have no idea if it should be taken seriously or not, actually, but when our Western pioneers travelled the plains, when they reached their chosen destinations it was not uncommon for them to dismantle the wagon and use the wood for part of their housing, especially in the Midwest plains where trees were so scarce.

What would it have been like after the Flood? No trees. Little if any easily-used rock as well, as the loose material may well have been washed down to the lower elevations and seas during the drainage. Massive rock outcroppings and miles and miles of sedimentary deposits growing new grass and shrubs and young trees. Swamps still draining...

What to use for homes? Caves at first, or the Ark itself if that had come to rest in an area hospitable to living. But I'm almost willing to bet that dismantling the Ark for the wood would have been the most reasonable thing to do for them. Especially since, pitched inside and out, that wood was treated and waterproof.

Just a thought.

What would happen if people actually found the Ark? Massive tourism; shrines; it would become Super-Relic and wood from the Ark would be faked and sold all over the world. Those who did not want to believe it real would continue to refuse -- after all, they already refuse in the face of other evidence of the actual reality of Genesis! Those who already believed would not need the Ark.

Christianity is, at its core, a personal relationship with God Himself, not a matter of various proofs to surmount intellectual challenges.

 

I would cause some serious shuffling among O.E. creationists who usually place the event much further back in time than a few thousand years.

Rob

 

exactly, well put - that is why 'creation science' is so ridiculous - you do not and should not need scientific proof for the existance of God - why do so many distort the scientific method in a vain attempt to come up with this 'proof'?

 

"In the beginning God CREATED the Heavens and the Earth" and "ALL THAT IS IN THEM" Gen 1:1, Exodus 20:8-11.

We "EXPECT" to find intelligent "DESIGN" - (take a look at a passion flower some time).

We "EXPECT" that something so simple as a single living cell IS NOT reproducable by science in ALL its billions of dollars spent in researching life.
We expect that it is a biochemical engineering masterpiece FAR BEYOND our puny human science.

We "EXPECT" to find some "processes" that (if isolated enough) could be used as a "clock" showing the age of earth or AT LEAST showing the descent of mankind from a single person.

We "EXPECT" to see an ever decaying eco-system the further we digress from the point of Creation and perfect order.

We "EXPECT" to find other life in the Universe - WHEN we have sufficient science to reach out and touch indicators of life on other worlds outside our solar system.

We "EXPECT" to find irreducably complex system.

We "EXPECT" to find common threads in the strained mythologies of mankind that show a common origin.

We "EXPECT" miracles from a living, active, all powerful, all knowing God. Things that are beyond our current level of science.

This is what you "EXPECT" scientifically IF the Christian doctrine on origins - and our creator God "is true".

As it turns out , all scientifice experiment starts with "an expectation" based on world view, prinicple. Expected conclusions are "tested" to see if the experiment supports them. A common expectation is "there is no God intervention (miracle" NEEDED in this test, nature alone accounts for all of it". Used by both Christian and atheist scientists. But the Christians sees it as a masterpiece of work designed and set in place and sustained by "The Master". The atheist sees something that he "hopes" can arise from nothing "on its own" in terms of abiogenesis.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Intelligent Design is still lacking a demonstration of something natural being designed. This has considerably delayed its acceptance.

Such a statement was once made concerning organic compounds. But then someone synthesized urea, and that gap closed. It is extremely unwise to define God in terms of what man cannot do.

As gene therapy was once FAR BEYOND our science. Again, this is a dangerous argument for our faith.

There are such things. Several different methods show that the Earth is about five billion years old. If you're referring to the "mitochondrial" Eve hypothesis, there is some reason to believe that a woman who lived about 200,000 years ago is the most recent common ancestor of all people living today. There are some possible problems with that idea. Would you like to hear about them?

In fact, we see an astonishing set of adaptations in various ecosystems, some of them very new. God's world has great capability to heal and renew itself.

I'd say you were a bit optimistic. I am skeptical on that point. However, it is possible that we might, before long, find evidence of life elsewhere in our solar system.

We have them. We have even watched them evolve.

That seems not to be the case. Origin mythologies are a complete mishmash of all sorts of elements, many of them contradictory.

Do you know why God does miracles?

Miracles are not scientific, nor has science any way of understanding them. Science hasn't got the reach to analyze the supernatural.

No. It starts with an observation. One of my first professors used to say that the method started with "What the %*$$ was THAT?."

It goes from there.

Conclusions come at the end of an observation, not beforehand. They have to be supported by evidence gathered during the observation.

Nope. Never heard of that. I think you might mean that an experiment never assumes supernatural events. This is quite different from your description.

Since God has told us that life was brought forth by the earth and waters, most Christians also accept that life began by natural means.

 

If that "natural means" means God created all kinds of things as they are now, to do what they are doing now then yes.

If that "natural means" means evolution then no, most Christians do not believe that.

 

>>>>>We "EXPECT" to see an ever decaying eco-system the further we digress from the point of Creation and perfect order.<<<<<<


I think you would have a hard time showing that whatever changes are taking place today are the result of being farther away in time from the point of creation. The changes that can be demonstrated are due to far more mundane causes.

 

I think that the numerous accounts of the near discovery of Noah's Ark have a highly negative effect on the reputation of creationists. Over the years, many claims have been made as to having found small samples of the Ark, and quite frequently, such claims are accompanied by claims that the finding of the actual Ark is immenient. These expediations are usually mounted by creationists, and the net result is that the accounts are published in supermarket tabloids, who are always looking for an amazing story. The Institute for Creation Research in California has been involved in some of these expediations. Apparently, in spite of a great deal of hype, nothing whatsoever that is convincing evidence of an Ark has been found. I think it is a wild goose chase and convincing only to the gullible. Certainly the claims, which until now have not stood up to scrutiny, are damaging to creationists.

 

The discovery would have minimal effects on the "world"! Why?

Remember the story of the rich man, Lazarus the beggar, and Abraham? The rich man wanted Abraham to allow Lazarus to return from the dead to warn his (the rich man) brothers of their future if they did not get on the straight & narrow. Abraham told him that they had Moses & the prophets, & if they did not believe them, they would not believe even though one rose from the dead.

Well what do we see in another story; specifically the resucitation of Lazarus, the brother of Mary & Martha?

Even after Lazarus is raised from the dead, the rulers of Israel still wanted to put Jesus to death because He (Jesus) threatened their hold on the populace. Seems that raising one from the dead became a threat rather than a sign of God's working! (Impossible, but true!)

Ergo, neither would the discovery of the ark have any noticable effect on the world at large simply because the world does not want to give up it's sinful ways.

It would be a great boost to believers who could say "See I told you so!", and interesting material for "bible study" discussion, but of no practical value.

As somebody mentioned earlier, it my be more of a hinderance simply because too many would see "a piece of the ark" as some kind of religious good-luck-charm; the very thing God has cautioned us to steer clear of!

 

Barbarians observe:
most Christians also accept that life began by natural means.

Nope. By "natural means", He means that life was brought forth by the earth and waters. We have His Word on it. It's not much good denying what He said about it.

Since evolution is not about the way life began, you won't find many scientists saying that, either. Christians generally accept that evolution is consistent with our faith, because it is. We accept that life began this way, because God said so.

 

Yup, in six normal days, by kind, in the order given in Genesis 1. That's how He did it, and that's how He said He did it. Not much good denying it!

 

I agree word for word with just-want-peace.

(That's kind of scary!)

 

The flood might have been historical, but it could not have been worldwide, and it could not have taken in every species of animal. Remember that the Bible does not say it was worldwide.

 

The Bible not only clearly indicates it was world-wide, but the idea of various 'species' being on the Ark is a straw man, Galatian, and you know that.

"Species" is man's taxonomic idea. God worked according to kind. Kind is much closer to the taxonomic definition of family or sub-family in most cases from what we can see: canine, feline, bovine, equine, etc.

In addition, not all animals were represented on the Ark. According to Genesis 7:14, They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

So we only have land and flying creatures. No sea creatures, and nothing lacking nephesh, or 'soul' (the other translation of the word translated here as 'breath of life'). Nephesh seems to be that in humans and animals which is expressed through a complex nervous system and allows for relationships between and among kinds over and above food-chain relationships, which expresses personality and individuality. This would leave out all insects, for instance. So what we have on the Ark are land and flying animals from the size of little shrews or other small rodents up to the few very large animals such as some young adults in the dinosaur and elephant and giraffe category.

As far as world-wide, the claim that it wasn't clearly flies in the face of what the Bible says. Here are some of the verses indicating a world-wide flood:

The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evl all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them.'
Genesis 6:5-8

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
Genesis 6:17

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased, they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished -- birds livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 7:17-24

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliverately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
1 Peter 3:3-6

The Bible is pretty clear about the extent of the Flood. Had it only been local then
1. all the ancient cultures of the world would not carry memories of it in their legends
2. the Ark would not have been necessary at all. Noah only need be warned to move his own livestock to higher, or different ground. In the time it took to build the Ark, it would have been much easier to accomplish an Abraham-type migration!

The repetition of the material in the long quote (Genesis 7) indicates extremely clearly that the Flood was truly a world-wide event. ...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

 

Perhaps you could show us where it says that. The notion that "the land" means "all the world" is not supported by Scripture.

No, I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps you could tell us about it.

Well, yes, but even then, there are far too many families for two to seven of each of them on the Ark as it is described.

That would be a rather astounding number of animals.

He'd have to have obligate freshwater or obligate saltwater fish aboard, depending on what you suppose the water of the "flood" was like. I suppose that it would have to be fresh, since the needs for fresh water for all those critters for a year would be astonishing, not to mention the fodder for the hooved animals.

Did you know the reason the "horse latitudes" are so named? It was because these were in wind belts that often becalmed ships for days, and running out of fodder and water for horses (which require large amounts of both) the crews would throw them overboard as an alternative to starving them or letting them die of thirst.

Hmmm... it would seem that there would be plenty of space for most insects. Hardly a problem. If you limited it to families, there's be little difficulty, and unlike vertebrates, they can often be induced to go into inactive states where little care would be needed.

The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evl all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them.'
Genesis 6:5-8</font>[/QUOTE]I don't see where it says it was worldwide, or even that there is a flood. Further, it has to be figurative, since God is omniscient, and regrets nothing.

But "eretz" is not used in the Bible to mean "the entire earth".

They don't. Great floods are pretty common in human history, so there are many flood stories, but even the ones that mention floods almost always contradict Genesis.

It turns out that Heaven is not really a dome over a flat, circular Earth, and there are no "floodgates" in the sky. There is no way to reconcile this with a literal Ark story.

 

So far, Noah's ark expeditions have come up either empty handed, turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, or turned out to be hoaxes.

There is unfortunately an abundance of "researchers" looking to make a buck off the boat.