Noah's Ark Craze

if it is Noah's ark in those photos, its in such bad condition that it will not make a hoot of difference to anyone. The only way to make people think that the story might be true is if an almost entirely intact ark is found.

I studied geology, and in my opinion, those are rocks.
 
SkinWalker said:
I have to side against Ophiolite in one of the few times I can recall in two boards.. that is to say, *if* he's using "ample" in the sense that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus as an historical figure.

However, if he's using "ample" in the sense that there are copious and plentiful accounts of Jesus, then I agree.
Click to expand...
I hesitated over the use of the word ample exactly because of the ambiguity of meaning. I decided to include it largely because I like the sound of it as a word. :)
And, yes, the sense in which I meant it is the second one: there is a lot of material about Jesus. Quality? Highly variable. Conclusion? Open to debate.
I would be surprised if he was not a historical figure, largely because a myth creator would find it easier to start with a known figure, then develop from that.
 
The story of the ark was true but it wasn't a vessel as fortold in genesis but a vessel of DNA ...biblical events are always merged with stories of good and evil, its interpretation together with historical documentation that provide sources to the ark's true physical makeup. Actually the ark with those dimensions in the bible wouldn't be able to hold all that livestock!!.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top