Page 4 of 4
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:44 am
by Canuckster1127
Folks just a reminder. Disagreement on issues is fine. Please be careful with making generalizations and also be careful with assuming motives of those who disagree with you. It may seem to you that somebody's beliefs are influenced by some underlying desire or motive and maybe that's worth asking a question in that direction, but that's a very different thing than assuming you know someone else's motives and openly assigning them to them. Forgetting that can easily lead to conflict and hurt feelings.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:50 am
by wrain62
So this site has gone too far. I agree it is not good to be attached too strongly to a scientific position since new information can easily bring it down. But now you are talking about either truth being relative or the peoples' truth being relative to what they want. These are scientific facts use to describe the probability of an event thousands of years ago. Therefore reason should be used to determine the probability of it and let us not resort to saying that people make things true for them (therefore no true reason can be attained?).
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:08 pm
by Tina
Ok, it appears my original question will not be answered, and instead has started somewhat of an argument on whether the flood was global or local. I think it would just be easier to ask God when we meet Him.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:11 pm
by Stu
RickD wrote:Didn't they use the wood from the ark, to build riding stables for the T-Rexes?
Remember they were baby T-Rex's
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:21 pm
by Stu
Tina wrote:and also, could God be hiding it from us? Finding the Ark would definitely be a blow to athiests and other religions...........but that would probably mess up "The Plan"
There are plenty reasons why we haven't found it yet I guess.
1. The wood was used to make temporary / permanent shelter.
2. The wood was used to make fire, implements and other tools.
3. It rotted and got covered by sand over the years.
4. It got covered by sand over the years.
Ask yourself the question.. if you were Noah, what are the chances you would have just left a massive hunk of wood like that just lying around when much of it could be harvested and reused; instead of having to go out and cut down additional trees.
Also the ark more than likely wouldn't have come to rest
on top of a mountain. It's a boat right; so as the waters receded so too would the boat along with it, probably coming to rest on a valley floor at the base of a mountain.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:02 pm
by dayage
Good points stu,
I would also like to add, Tina, that the ark landed somewhere in a mountain range, not on Mount Ararat. In my opinion it happened more than 50,000 yrs ago.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:17 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
ROBE wrote:I can read Answers in Genesis that can prove beyond any doubt they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Likewise I can read this site that can prove beyond any doubt they are right and everybody else is wrong.
The truth is what you want it to be.
That is why the world is full of different religions that then divide up into sects.
YEC believe there was darkness in the first day because the sun didn't exist, while I believe the Earth had an opaque atmosphere that then became translucent and finally transparent.
I have had lots of discussions with YEC and they have not convinced me and I did not convince them.
The same thing has happened re global flood with OEC.
You firmly believe the whole human race was living in one local area and Noah built a massive box for a local flood, while I find that silly.
As I have said before I find many beliefs of AIG silly but many beliefs on this site as having gone to far.
That is fine Robe i was never trying to convince you otherwise, all i have been doing is answering any contentions.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:20 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
wrain62 wrote:So this site has gone too far. I agree it is not good to be attached too strongly to a scientific position since new information can easily bring it down. But now you are talking about either truth being relative or the peoples' truth being relative to what they want. These are scientific facts use to describe the probability of an event thousands of years ago. Therefore reason should be used to determine the probability of it and let us not resort to saying that people make things true for them (therefore no true reason can be attained?).
How true, i was never trying to convince anyone my opinion was right.
I think Y.E.C position has valid points, i guess i just reacted badly to being accused of something that is not true.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:22 pm
by dayage
ROBE,
Danieltwotwenty was correct, the answers to your questions are in my posts. I actually got all of those questions from Answers in Genesis book, which I own. I am interested in exegeting the texts, not just trying to defend a position.
I was refering to Answers in Genesis when I said that some young-earth groups do not believe that
har was refering to mountains in Genesis 7:19-20. They, like I, believe it was a reference to hills.
Ships the size of the ark were used by Egyptians, Greeks, etc. for transportation, battle, etc. They did not need a flood to build them. Plus, the reason Noah built it was because God told him to. I wouldn't need any more reason than that.
Here is a link to a documentary on superships:
http://shop.history.com/superships-dvd/ ... 69995#tabs
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:23 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
Tina wrote:Ok, it appears my original question will not be answered, and instead has started somewhat of an argument on whether the flood was global or local. I think it would just be easier to ask God when we meet Him.
There have been multiple answers to your question, don't forget that some of these answers rest on whether it is a global or local flood and that is why a debate has ensued.
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:25 pm
by wrain62
dayage wrote:Good points stu,
I would also like to add, Tina, that the ark landed somewhere in a mountain range, not on Mount Ararat. In my opinion it happened more than 50,000 yrs ago.
It had to have happened during the era of agriculture starting 12000 years ago. Also in the era of domesticated animals. With a straitforward reading of the text. Abel was a farmer, some of the animals that are the clean ones were domesticated.I hear estimations that these animals arose around the magnitude of 12000 years ago. How can we account for this?
Re: Noah's Ark?
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:59 pm
by dayage
wrain62,
Domestication goes all the way back to Adam, Cain and Abel (Genesis 2:15; 4:2-4). We were in an iceage, so domestication may have been interupted many times. Because of the population size of humans, it was also not on a large scale like today. Recent evidence for for this comes from the discovery of the earliest domestic dog. It dates back to about 33,000 yrs. Before this discovery, the domestication of dogs fell into the same time period as other animals and plants. That is, towards the end of the ice age or about 12,000 yrs ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14390679