Noah's Ark

[Outta Here]

I've been thinking on this one for a while. I really don't think that archaelogists will ever discover the ruins of Noah's ark. I'm thinking that it must have looked rather inviting (like a hotel would) to those who would have had to rebuild after the flood. A great place to stay. And once the company got a bit noisome and bothersome, the ark had to have been a great resource for pre-cut lumber.

No, I think for sure "they'll" never find the ruins.

[teresaq]

I have wondered about that also. Your thoughts make sense to me.

The earth was pretty devastated by that time so of course they would have needed the lumber. I can't imagine them trudging down the mountain to live in barrenness until plant life regrew.

But then again living on a mountain...

I wonder what it was like 4000 years ago.

Nice topic. :)

[M. T. Cross]

Thats assuming that pre flood they actually lived in houses built from wood. Is there not a story about Noah being tricked into sleeping with his daughter in his tent?

[Outta Here]

Interesting. Yes, they probably had something similar to a yurt. But, I know if it were me and my family--after working to build a boat for 500 years, I'd be tempted to just stay in the boat for a good long while.

Good thought!

[M. T. Cross]

I can see your point there. But after being on it for the length of time they were said to be on it, it might have been nice to get off. I would expect it might have stunk just a little with all those crittures on it. Thats not a smell that goes away real fast

[Outta Here]

Yes, that's the "bothersome" part I was talking about in the first post. I was thinking that they'd probably start to tear the ark apart sometime and build smaller living units.

[M. T. Cross]

Could be, I guess in the end it would depend on what they had kept for tools, and how hospitable the geographic area was at the time.

[teresaq]

Good point about living in houses. Guess we don't really know how they lived pre-flood.

But...you are thinking of Lot many, many years later, after Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, and that was a cave, I believe.

[Tom Wetmore]

Perhaps mixing up that story with the one in Genesis 9 about Noah getting drunk in his tent and his son seeing him sleeping naked in his tent while he was drunk.

[Kevin H]

This has been the opinion of many Biblical scholars, that the Ark was dismantelled for thing such as building materials and fire wood until the earth had recovered.

Also we don't know where it landed. When Christianity grew a lot of countries wanted Bible stories to have taken place in their country, but since we knew where most of it took place, one spot that was fair game was the mountain for the Ark to land on, so several countries began to pick a mountain and say that this was the mountain. The mountain in Turkey was just one of these post spread of Chrisitianity, let's have the ark land here mountain, the reason why it became famous is because the crusaders would come by this mountain and start saying it was the mountain. But we have no evidence and it appears to be in the wrong direction from Babylon from what the Bible says.

[M. T. Cross]

Indeed - I did do that - but the tent was the point.

[Restin]

The one Ron Wyatt claimed to have found in Turkey (where they now have a museum) is mainly a shape in the ground made by the remains. The sides were gone long ago. So, Noah could have used it to live in, or for lumber, even if that is the site. The anchor stones were also found in the area. There's an interesting web page on Ron Wyatt's research. Can't recall the exact addy. Of course, it's for everyone to decide for himself, from the evidence presented.

[Outta Here]

What were anchor stones for? An anchor, as in a ship's anchor? Or anchor stones for use after the ship had been grounded? Just curious.

And, by the way, I agree--it's for everyone to decide for herself from the evidence presented. That's the fun of this thread! Original thoughts from the Mount of Ararat. (Hehehe.)

[Kevin H]

Once again, we do not know where the mountain was that the ark landed on. There use to be a time where you could travel to Jerusalem and Rome and buy parts of the real cross, or the real nails that went through Jesus' hand, and they sold enough wood from the real cross and enough nails from the real cross to build a huge city. In the same way when Christianity spread and started to settle down and change into Catholism, every country wanted a piece of the Bible in their back yard. Since most of the Bible took place in Israel, Egypt, and Babylon, and some of the countries bordering on Israel, there were few other options.

The one that was fair game was the mountain where the ark landed on. So everyone clamed that they had the real mountain. This mountain in Turkey was just one of the many that got that name when people started to consider themselves generally Christians. The only reason why it became the most famous is because it was the one that the crusaders would pass by, write home about and go home and talk about.

Bible commentaries point out how the Bible actually pitcures the Ark to have landed someplace east of Babylon, and this mountain in Turkey is north and a little west. not fitting the Biblical geography. However, as we find too often, when the Bible says one thing and tradition says something else, tradition usually wins out or people tend to tapdance over the Bible to make it fit tradition after all.