Noah's Ark

[Choosefaith]

I have a Question that I have heard been asked, Has The Boat of Noah Ever Been Discovered? This might be too hard!

[ June 28, 2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Choosefaith ]

 

[Helen]

No, it hasn't, but not for lack of trying! Explorations of Ararat go on yearly, although it is getting harder and harder due to the political situation and the necessity of bribing everyone in sight over there! I am aware of one man who ended up dodging bullets during his exploration and another who was arrested and wound up in a Turkish jail for awhile!

There have been a number of declarations that 'here it is!' but everytime each has been checked out, it is either a natural rock formation or a trick the light has been playing.

So far no Ark.

Personally, I am wondering how anyone thinks it survived several thousand years, or why they don't think Noah and sons took it apart for the lumber after the Flood?

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Helen:
Personally, I am wondering how anyone thinks it survived several thousand years, or why they don't think Noah and sons took it apart for the lumber after the Flood?

Perhaps they think it would be so exciting to find it that the likelihood of it no longer existing hasn't put them off looking.

 

[Choosefaith]

So then it is false that it was found on a mountain near Turkey or somewhere as a fossil right?

Genesis 8
4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

I know I sound crazy but I was asked this so I was asking now. Wouldn't of it been funny if it was found on mount Ararat exaclty how the bible says it rested. I think we would still have non-believers

[ June 29, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Choosefaith ]

 

[Helen]

There are a number of 'mountains of Ararat' in that range! The reason Mt. Ararat is being the target of the searches is because it is the tallest, and so it is presumed Noah's ark came to rest there.

Something I have thought of, however, is that in the earth movements since, particularly the division of the land masses in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), there could have been a giant shifting of which peaks were higher than others! They may be looking on the wrong mountain all the time!

 

[BrotherJesse]

This thread is just like asking "Has anyone ever found the Ark of the Covenant?"

Personally, Noahs Ark is probably decayed and the wood rotted. I've seen shows where they've supposedly 'gone inside the ark to see the animal cages' but that is just false. My question is how did Noah take the marine life into the ark?

 

[Helen]

Jesse, why would marine life need to be on the Ark?

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by BrotherJesse:
This thread is just like asking "Has anyone ever found the Ark of the Covenant?"

Personally, Noahs Ark is probably decayed and the wood rotted. I've seen shows where they've supposedly 'gone inside the ark to see the animal cages' but that is just false. My question is how did Noah take the marine life into the ark?

That's a question I have been pondering for awhile. Since the flood was to have killed all life, it seems the marine life was not as they naturally LIVE in the water. Maybe marine life was NOT a part of the overall killing of life forms in general and thus no need to be on the Ark. If they were killed, then, back to your question. How did this life form continue without being on the Ark? This may be a mute question, but it is legit!

God Bless...........Alex

PS: With the great flood many believe that this was a terrible time for ALL life due to mass erosion, mountains crumbling down, volcanos, hot water from below, etc. Floods since then and now, even the worst, would be a grain of sand compared to this one. With this in mind, nothing should have survived except for Noah and family with the animals on-board.

God Bless...........Alex

 

[Helen]

Hi Alex!

The study on Genesis 7, The Flood, is in the Bible study forum here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=43&t=000007&p=

There was a reasonable amount of discussion there, and I think you will find your questions answered. Come on in, join some of the study days. The water's fine!

 

[Gayla]

About the marine life, (which I'd never thought of before)
Since the Ark was waterproof, maybe they built "Fish aquariums" the same way.

 

[Helen]

Fish were not on the Ark. Please read Genesis 7

 

[rsr]

I love biblical archeology, but it often falls into the Trap of Truth. If only we could find the ark, we could prove the Bible is true.

Christianity is based on faith. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed." Just as the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin doesn't affect faith, neither should the fate of the ark.

Besides, everyone knows the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia. Or is it some government warehouse? (Oh, wait, that's a movie.)

[ July 02, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[UTEOTW]

I think that it is getting dangerous for me to read the posts on Creationism and the Flood. Every answer seems to give me knew questions.

Reading this thread, the question of how did fish, and anything else not on the Ark, survive seemed like a very legitimate question. The two main things I thought about were salt vs. fresh water issues and a possible collapse of the entire food chain when a combination of clouds and murky water made photosynthesis difficult. So I followed the link to the other discussion as suggested. Now I do not know how anything survived including those on the Ark.

The thread stated that most of the water came from underground. The FIRST thing that happened was an explosion out of the ground of waters. That means these waters had to have been under enormous pressure; and that means heat...But the Bible is clear that the main source of the water for the Flood was under the earth's crust. For water to be under that much pressure, scalding is an understatement. The water would have had to be heated hundreds of degrees above the boiling point. (About 200 degrees F above boiling gives water at about 260 psi pressure. The effects described seem to indicate much higher pressure.) A mixture of steam and water would have burst forth and when the water reached atmospheric pressure a significant amount would have flashed (boiled) to steam to cool the remaining water to the boiling point. So the water flooding the land would have been at the boiling point.

Using the average depth of today's oceans and highest mountains as a gross approximation, there would have been about three times the volume of flood water as ocean water. But it takes less than a one to one mixture of water heated 200 degrees above boiling and water at the freezing point to get the mixture to the boiling point. So you have more than three times the volume of hot water needed to get the entire flood waters to the boiling point. And this is discounting the steam!

But then I thought of another temperature problem. The water vapor must condense to water droplets before they can fall as rain. That is a lot of latent heat. (When you boil water, you have to put a lot of heat into the water to convert itto a vapor. When that vapor condenses the same amount of heat is released.) Using the total mass of the atmosphere and the radius of the earth from a NASA website, I calculated that the heat released from enough water to cause only 2 feet of rain to fall on the whole world would release enough raise the temperature of the atmosphere 200 degrees F.

So we are left with a world that is completely flooded in boiling floodwaters and an atmosphere on top that is even hotter. I propose that this would not only sterilize the planet of everything in or on the waters but that it also might pose a bit of a problem for those on the Ark.

I have gotten very frustrated with the naturalistic explainations given to try and support the Bible. I once had no doubts at all about the Flood. But I have found that when I read accounts of the Flood such as that referenced above that the explainations seem to make less sense that the problem the writer is trying to address. This is how I think. When I read something like that my inclination is to grab a calculator and a book and check. Maybe it is just the engineer in me. This is also the same case in the Creationism debate. I started as a YEC but without having a factual basis. When I realized that there was conflict between mainstream science and creationism I started digging. And I was really shocked by what I found. Creationist basically talked me out of Creationism. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics line is the one that really set me off questioning and looking at the other arguments more closely. So now I have a ton of questions surrounding both of these topics. I tried for a while to get around it with OEC and such but I cannot find a way to make jive with scripture. And by the same methods those that I find arguing for absolute inerrancy are also now leading towards a view of the Bible closer to inspired but subject to the errors of a human writer.

I have been a bit hesitent to put these feeling out there. To put my head on the chopping block so to speak. This is because when I first started I tried talking to other believers about it and found out very quickly that most get riled very quickly and are unwilling to even discuss the subject civilly and logically. So I have been reduced to dealing with it privately and with prayer.

 

[Multimom]

I recently watched another "Ark" exploration show. There is one archeologist who seems to have discovered something new. They have been using metal detectors in the Ararat Mts. and underground they have discovered what appears to be wrought iron coupling that they are dating. The pattern that these couplings follow underground shows a boat shaped object.

The dimensions match that of the ark in width and length, but because of the ice coverage etc, the entire boat has not been unearthed. But they have recovered about 158 of these iron couplings and have determined that they are 98% man made wrought iron.

So who knows??

 

[Helen]

Hi!

Thought I would give this on a shot...

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I think that it is getting dangerous for me to read the posts on Creationism and the Flood. Every answer seems to give me knew questions.

That's a whole lot better than not being curious or not thinking!

Reading this thread, the question of how did fish, and anything else not on the Ark, survive seemed like a very legitimate question. The two main things I thought about were salt vs. fresh water issues and a possible collapse of the entire food chain when a combination of clouds and murky water made photosynthesis difficult.

On the salt vs. fresh water, it is probably a safe bet that the antediluvian (pre-Flood) waters were either fresh or only slightly salty. The eruption of subcrustal waters would have carried with them tons upon tons of pulverized soil and rock, and thus quite a few salts and minerals which then became gradually mixed with the existant seas.

About photosynthesis -- plants can do fine on a cloudy day most of the time. That's first of all. Secondly, if my husband's model is correct, the bursting of the subcrustal waters took place primarily along the incipient plate boundaries. That means the Pacific, which was MUCH larger before the splitting of the continents, was essentially undisturbed through its vast middle by these explosions, allowing all manner of sea life to survive the year.

The gradual mixing of the fresh and new salt water would have killed of a reasonable number of species I would guess. But that is only a guess! However we know that a number of fish have the ability to vary, even today, between fresh and salt water -- such as the salmon. The Pacific is so big that I imagine the mixing took an awfully long time to complete, so a number of generations of fish and other sea life could have been involved.

So I followed the link to the other discussion as suggested. Now I do not know how anything survived including those on the Ark.

The thread stated that most of the water came from underground. The FIRST thing that happened was an explosion out of the ground of waters. That means these waters had to have been under enormous pressure; and that means heat...But the Bible is clear that the main source of the water for the Flood was under the earth's crust. For water to be under that much pressure, scalding is an understatement. The water would have had to be heated hundreds of degrees above the boiling point. (About 200 degrees F above boiling gives water at about 260 psi pressure. The effects described seem to indicate much higher pressure.) A mixture of steam and water would have burst forth and when the water reached atmospheric pressure a significant amount would have flashed (boiled) to steam to cool the remaining water to the boiling point. So the water flooding the land would have been at the boiling point.

I think in areas it probably was. However the cracks had already appeared, as we can see from Genesis 2, which indicates that the entire surface of the ground was watered by 'mists' or 'fountains' which indicates water under pressure even then. So the bursting forth was a final phase of the waters if you want to think of it that way. The large continental cratons had already risen, probably about the time Methusaleh was born, again if my husband's model is correct. The geologic processes were already starting to release energy, so it was not quite as sudden as might be thought in that way.

Using the average depth of today's oceans and highest mountains as a gross approximation, there would have been about three times the volume of flood water as ocean water.

Here on both counts you are wrong. The sea beds would not have been nearly as deep before the sinking of the crust in the areas where the waters had torn up the rocks escaping and the mountains did not rise until after the Flood, or in its very late stages.

But it takes less than a one to one mixture of water heated 200 degrees above boiling and water at the freezing point to get the mixture to the boiling point. So you have more than three times the volume of hot water needed to get the entire flood waters to the boiling point. And this is discounting the steam!/

Because of the above, you have headed in the wrong direction here, as well.

But then I thought of another temperature problem. The water vapor must condense to water droplets before they can fall as rain. That is a lot of latent heat. (When you boil water, you have to put a lot of heat into the water to convert itto a vapor. When that vapor condenses the same amount of heat is released.) Using the total mass of the atmosphere and the radius of the earth from a NASA website, I calculated that the heat released from enough water to cause only 2 feet of rain to fall on the whole world would release enough raise the temperature of the atmosphere 200 degrees F.

Then why doesn't that happen now? We have a number of places in the world that receive FAR more than that on a yearly basis. During monsoon seasons, Southeast Asia can receive that much in a few days!

So we are left with a world that is completely flooded in boiling floodwaters and an atmosphere on top that is even hotter. I propose that this would not only sterilize the planet of everything in or on the waters but that it also might pose a bit of a problem for those on the Ark.

I think maybe your calculations are a bit wrong?

I have gotten very frustrated with the naturalistic explainations given to try and support the Bible. I once had no doubts at all about the Flood. But I have found that when I read accounts of the Flood such as that referenced above that the explainations seem to make less sense that the problem the writer is trying to address. This is how I think. When I read something like that my inclination is to grab a calculator and a book and check. Maybe it is just the engineer in me. This is also the same case in the Creationism debate. I started as a YEC but without having a factual basis. When I realized that there was conflict between mainstream science and creationism I started digging. And I was really shocked by what I found. Creationist basically talked me out of Creationism. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics line is the one that really set me off questioning and looking at the other arguments more closely. So now I have a ton of questions surrounding both of these topics. I tried for a while to get around it with OEC and such but I cannot find a way to make jive with scripture. And by the same methods those that I find arguing for absolute inerrancy are also now leading towards a view of the Bible closer to inspired but subject to the errors of a human writer.

I have been a bit hesitent to put these feeling out there. To put my head on the chopping block so to speak. This is because when I first started I tried talking to other believers about it and found out very quickly that most get riled very quickly and are unwilling to even discuss the subject civilly and logically. So I have been reduced to dealing with it privately and with prayer.

It's hard when people might accuse you of being a heretic or an unbeliever or whatever. I can understand that. I started off being an evolutionist and then ended up YEC due to science. But it was science I more or less put together myself in some areas. I have to agree with you that the arguments which are popularized by a number of the YEC folk are enough to make one totally cringe.

My husband is Barry Setterfield. We have a website here: www.setterfield.org

Go into the scientific articles section and check "A Brief Earth History" (I think that is what it is called -- it's one of the first two articles in the science articles section) and see how much sense that makes to you.

We can be reached at bhs4light@baptistmail.com for any questions you have.

If you email this coming weekend or the week following, please be patient, however, as Barry is having some surgery on Monday and will need time to recuperate.

Thank you.

Helen Setterfield

 

[rsr]

Multimom:

I think I saw that one too. It was interesting, no more than that.

Personally, I would be disappointed if the ark were ever found. The Ark of the Covenant, that's a different story ...

 

[Multimom]

rsr:

Why would you be disappointed if Noah's Ark were found. In my mind that just gives even more creedance to the Bible and to the fact of the global flood.

I too would be in awe if the Ark of the Covenant were found.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Would it ? Because the Bible says it, you still have doubts ? If we found Jesus' DNA on some nails, would that lend more creedance to the cross ?

God has made sure that his word is around, why can't that suffice ? If the Ark suddenly appeared, would that cause more people to believe ?

I doubt it will be found, like the Tower of Babel, the Ark of the Covenant, the original Temple artifacts, the sling which David used, the torn curtain, all gone. The only thing we have to go on is God's word.

Praise God for that!!!

 

[ChristianCynic]

God has made sure that his word is around, why can't that suffice ?

Because people believe what they choose to believe and disbelieve anything not in conformity. And the greatest influences leading to the choice(s) of what to believe are upbringing and environment. I doubt if the Bible was a completely foreign book to you, then one day you happened to pick one up and starting reading through the creation, the flood, and the tower and said, "All the answers are right here!" No, it takes more influence than that to believe the Word. And that is why it does not 'suffice' for the vast majority of people. I believe the Bible, but I also know that without the influence of having it quoted to me from my earliest years I would not regard it as any more special than the Koran or the Pearl of Great Price. Those who believe in any sacred text can say that text itself is sufficient as a basis of what they believe. But thinking people see the programming of an individual's frame of reference for what it is. That is why people search for hard evidence.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Thanx, Cynic. I guess my brother is the kind you describe. he needs God to beat him over the head with something.

BUT!!!>>>

I got him a really good study Bible, and even though he's very agnostic, he has really suprised me with some of his observations. He actually agreed with me the other day, saying Israel just might be God's chosen people. He has read Job, with a lot of science, and really got a lot out of it. I have showed him the prophecies concerning Christ, especially in Isaiah, and Psalms, but he just won't admit to Christ being God's own son.