Noah's Ark Found!

[bloodyminded]

I am making a solemn vow right now: if the Evangelical explorers are correct, I will give each current member of MLW one hundred dollars. And you won't need to go all the way to Mt. Ararat to cash in.

Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Published April 28, 2010

A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they've found the remains of Noah's ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey's Mount Ararat (map).

But some archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah's ark has been found about as seriously as they have past oneswhich is to say not very.

(See "Noah's Ark Discovered in Iran?" and "Noah's Ark Quest Dead in WaterWas It a Stunt?")

"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.

Turkish and Chinese explorers from a group called Noah's Ark Ministries International made the latest discovery claim Monday in Hong Kong, where the group is based.

"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker accompanying the explorers, told The Daily Mail.

.....................

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

Edited April 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Even if it were true, it wouldn't imply that a talking snake told Eve to eat an apple... or that it didn't tell her to eat it.

[bloodyminded]

Even if it were true, it wouldn't imply that a talking snake told Eve to eat an apple... or that it didn't tell her to eat it.

I agree, but it's moot. Noah's Ark is a myth. (Also, physically impossible, for more than one reason: think "two of every animal," and think "animal care performed by a a tiny handful of people.") And myths are fine things...unless they're taken literally.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree, but it's moot. Noah's Ark is a myth. (Also, physically impossible, for more than one reason: think "two of every animal," and think "animal care performed by a a tiny handful of people.") And myths are fine things...unless they're taken literally.

But myths aren't necessarily false... just blown a little out of proportion.

[bloodyminded]

But myths aren't necessarily false... just blown a little out of proportion.

Sure, they can be either. The only worthy humans ordered by God to build a boat and house two of every animal (most of which, of course, were totally unknown, and unavailable, in that region)...that's false.

Edited April 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, they can be either. The only worthy humans ordered by God to build a boat and house two of every animal (most of which, of course, were totally unknown, and unavailable, in that region)...that's false.

Gilgamesh had a flood in it too.

[Oleg Bach]

So what! JUDAS was the best friend of Jesus.

[Guest American Woman]

I am making a solemn vow right now: if the Evangelical explorers are correct, I will give each current member of MLW one hundred dollars. And you won't need to go all the way to Mt. Ararat to cash in.

"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker accompanying the explorers, told The Daily Mail.

Since they're 99.9% sure, I'll settle for 99.9% of the hundred dollars you're offering.

Edited April 29, 2010 by American Woman

[wyly]

Gilgamesh had a flood in it too.

floods are common events all over the planet and for people of the time their valley or island was the entire world as far as they percieved it and like fishing stories the fish gets bigger with each telling of the story...some farmer and his family and a few of his chickens and goats survive a flood by floating on the roof of his home..myth born...

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes, myths are sometimes based on true stories that are blown out of proportion. That does not mean it is impossible that there was a great flood event in that region a long time ago, and people were able to survive by living on a boat, nd brought along their farm animals.

There's a lot about the past that we simply do not understand. The Mithras/ Jesus/ Krishna legends all have certian important similarities. Even if they are based on pure mythology, it's useful to understand the origins of our mythology and what it is trying to teach us.

The only problem I can see is when people try to interpret it literally, whether they are extremist fundamentalists, or extremist athiests. Two sides of the same coin.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The only problem I can see is when people try to interpret it literally, whether they are extremist fundamentalists, or extremist athiests. Two sides of the same coin.

Extremeist atheists interpret the bible literally? I was under the impression they thought it was crap.

[Sir Bandelot]

Extremeist atheists interpret the bible literally? I was under the impression they thought it was crap.

Because they interpret it literally.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Because they interpret it literally.

Which atheists have you heard interpret it literally? Are you talking about when they are debating literalists and disprove it? Because I don't think that counts.

[Sir Bandelot]

Which atheists have you heard interpret it literally? Are you talking about when they are debating literalists and disprove it? Because I don't think that counts.

Dawkins et al interpret the bible literally, as though the only interpretation is that God is some mean old daddy in the sky. Hence the jeering that bible believers might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. But if the bible is seen purely as a metaphor for the growth of the individual person, or some such abstract idea, their arguments have no legs.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Dawkins et al interpret the bible literally, as though the only interpretation is that God is some mean old daddy in the sky. Hence the jeering that bible believers might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. But if the bible is seen purely as a metaphor for the growth of the individual person, or some such abstract idea, their arguments have no legs.

Yes but how many christians think of the bible as purely a metaphor? Though you may be right and Dawkins takes it a bit to far, though in his defence when you mostly debate literalists you forget that there are christians who don't take the bible as 100% truth. And even as a metaphor the bible sucks, I'm mean what's the metaphoric meaning of dashing babies heads against rocks?

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes but how many christians think of the bible as purely a metaphor? Though you may be right and Dawkins takes it a bit to far, though in his defence when you mostly debate literalists you forget that there are christians who don't take the bible as 100% truth. And even as a metaphor the bible sucks, I'm mean what's the metaphoric meaning of dashing babies heads against rocks?

Don't know. But the mythology aspect as it relates to the OP simply imples, that these events need not have happened in the real world in order for them to impart some kind of message to the reader.

Since it is an old book written long ago, one has to keep it in its historical perspective. And I understand that it was written and rewritten many times over the ages by different people. And so one could look at it as a book that contains some truth, and some lies. This analogy was told to me once by a very devoted bible-thumper christian.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[DrGreenthumb]

you don't have to believe in all the stories in the bible to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and see Him as your saviour.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, myths are sometimes based on true stories that are blown out of proportion. That does not mean it is impossible that there was a great flood event in that region a long time ago, and people were able to survive by living on a boat, nd brought along their farm animals.

There's a lot about the past that we simply do not understand. The Mithras/ Jesus/ Krishna legends all have certian important similarities. Even if they are based on pure mythology, it's useful to understand the origins of our mythology and what it is trying to teach us.

The only problem I can see is when people try to interpret it literally, whether they are extremist fundamentalists, or extremist athiests. Two sides of the same coin.

OK, but the subject of this thread--the Evangelical archaeologists--DO take the story literally, just as they take a 6000 year (or whatever it is) Biblical Creationist timeline literally.

To these fundamentalists, Noah's Ark is decidedly not the story of a farming family surviving a flood on a boat with a few of their domesticated animals. They would denounce the very idea. Something like that could conceivably be a genesis of a myth, I agree, but that isn't what people mean when they say "we think we discovered Noah's Ark."

[Michael Hardner]

Something that's being mentioned, that I don't quite understand, is some kind of problem with people taking these stories seriously. Surely, that's their business. I'd like to make people think the zodiac isn't true either, but I can't. I don't know if that qualifies as a problem though.

[bloodyminded]

Something that's being mentioned, that I don't quite understand, is some kind of problem with people taking these stories seriously. Surely, that's their business. I'd like to make people think the zodiac isn't true either, but I can't. I don't know if that qualifies as a problem though.

Certainly, if folks wish to actively engage in their favoured pursuits, it is their own business.

But when they publically announce that their business is objective fact and that they can prove it, I see no problem with countering their public claims.

[Michael Hardner]

But when they publically announce that their business is objective fact and that they can prove it, I see no problem with countering their public claims.

Right, but is it a problem ? We were taught in our religious studies that belief is an act of faith, and requires a degree of courage precisely because there is no proof, and can be no proof. If there were proof, then there would be nothing required of us other than reason.

It's a mistake to try to resolve problems between faith and science - it leads to silliness.

[bloodyminded]

Right, but is it a problem ? We were taught in our religious studies that belief is an act of faith, and requires a degree of courage precisely because there is no proof, and can be no proof. If there were proof, then there would be nothing required of us other than reason.

It's a mistake to try to resolve problems between faith and science - it leads to silliness.

That's fair enough. But I'm not criticizing faith. And I'm not hoping to resolve problems between faith and science.

It's the Evangelical archaeologists who are doing this, by claiming "proof" of something that patently cannot be verified.

[Michael Hardner]

It's the Evangelical archaeologists who are doing this, by claiming "proof" of something that patently cannot be verified.

Well, this can only end up being an archeological curiosity, at best. Like the shroud of Turin, it's more likely to end up being another joke - or even worse - an outright fraud.

[wyly]

Dawkins et al interpret the bible literally, as though the only interpretation is that God is some mean old daddy in the sky. Hence the jeering that bible believers might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. But if the bible is seen purely as a metaphor for the growth of the individual person, or some such abstract idea, their arguments have no legs.

but the religious flip flop continuously choosing at their convenience which parts are to be taken literally and which are metaphors....you're defense has no legs..

[Sir Bandelot]

but the religious flip flop continuously choosing at their convenience which parts are to be taken literally and which are metaphors....you're defense has no legs..

Not a defence, as though I am the spokesman for the faithful. Belief is whatever it takes to get the job done. And belief is not simply in the mind. Belief can enable people to do things, it is a force. Example, Mohammed Ali had legs.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Sir Bandelot