Is there any real proof of Noah's Ark?

In a word, no.

Depending upon the religionist, however, the Ark tale might be literal, might be allegorical, or, some amalgam of the two.

It's an illustration of the problem with approach to religious belief. Even a religionists' own objections to the logical, practical absurdities within the tale could be swept aside in favor of believing in what makes them feel good. many prefer the feel-good -- even if it's untrue -- rather than the truth, which may be uncomfortable.

What they feel is of no importance. What the truth is, is of great importance. I am not spinning any truths, I am simply compiling a litany of physical / natural absurdities of the bibles and noting that they qualify as a "mess". The bibles are full of contradictions and supernatural mumbo-jumbo: talking serpents, 600 year old men, Arks, and so on. It's mere mythology.
 
Probably.

Coordinates for viewing Noah's Ark on google earth.
Bow (39 26 23.72N, 44 14 04.57E)
Stern (39 26 28.38N, 44 14 06.25E)
Noah's Ark visitors center (39 26 34.21N, 44 14 01.75E)
 
Probably.

Coordinates for viewing Noah's Ark on google earth.
Bow (39 26 23.72N, 44 14 04.57E)
Stern (39 26 28.38N, 44 14 06.25E)
Noah's Ark visitors center (39 26 34.21N, 44 14 01.75E)
Someone has played a cruel joke on you. Those are the coordinates for both ends of McDonalds Golden Arches.
 
.
the Earth can not be covered in water due to rain ... if it existed, it never sailed.
 
.
the Earth can not be covered in water due to rain ... if it existed, it never sailed.
Yep. And depending upon the religionist, there will be a conclusion that parts of the bibles are allegorical or contradictory, then, the realization that the bible is contradictory -- but understandable, or, it's hard to understand and it MAY be contradictory, or, whatever.

I would come firmly down on this side: The bibles are not that hard to understand. It's not the most exciting reading, but the infomration being passed along is very self evident. Since it is written by more than one man, and we know men change things and make errors, the bibles accurately reflects what is a consistently human document. This accounts for the contradictions, and the blatant anthropomorphic nature of the gods, good vs. evil, and litany of laws.

This of course completely uncouples the bible from being any sort of divine book, which in turn decouples anyone having any idea about what the belief system would be, since the belief system is reliant on the book for its foundation. In other words, the writers of the bible were as knowledgeable as men were at the time it was penned, and there's no knowledge in it that is god-like in nature. This is because it is a wholly human document.
 
I'd like to think so.
Well, yeah. Screw those losers who drowned. They were a disappointment to the gawds and deserved to die.

Praise jeebus for his mercy and compassion.

Wait, what?

Never mind.
 
This is a great question to establish who on USMB is foolish enough to admit they believe in the Ark and who's statements past, present and future should be weighed with this admission in mind.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html?_r=0
I found it, it's in Kentucky! :D
ARK-1-articleLarge.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top