What impact would finding Noah's Ark have upon the world?

[Pingfah]

No impact.

People of faith don't need the physical ark to affirm their beliefs. And you could parade every relic (and person) from the bible in front of a atheist and they would just call every bit of it fake.

Atheist: "I denial your very existence!"
Jesus: "I'm standing right in front of you." - wave hand in atheist's face - "Hello ..."

So in your absurd example, does this man claiming to be Jesus have any way of demonstrating his status as such? Or is he just some guy waving at me going "Hey, i'm jesus, now you MUST believe me!"

What reason do you have for thinking that when presented with rational and conclusive evidence, Atheists would still not believe in something? Because your statement flies right in the face of why a great deal of atheists actually are atheists.

Please, explain yourself.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The existence of a real Noah's Ark is impossible for many reasons.

Not if, ya know, God made it possible.

Well, there's reason number one.

I would try and take it, using well-researched knowledge and facts and my trusty whip to avoid cunning traps, claiming that it belongs "in a museum" then start shooting swordsmen and Nazis in an attempt to find it.

There were two of every snake species on Earth aboard. Just a warning.

Damn, I was hoping this was a hypothetical situation where the animals were all still there and it meant that everyone could finally have a pet unicorn.

All right! Now we've got a plot.

As for the Flood Myth itself, there are many of them. The most likely explanation is that they date back to various oral traditions from the end of the last Ice Age when gigantic glacial melt lakes miles across would have sporadically caused sudden and devastating local flooding, as with the bursting of a dam.

 

[iguana_tonante]

And you could parade every relic (and person) from the bible in front of a atheist and they would just call every bit of it fake.

Atheist: "I denial your very existence!"
Jesus: "I'm standing right in front of you." - wave hand in atheist's face - "Hello ..."

Yeah, yeah. Just wake me up when that happens.

The world has already discovered the burial cloth which covered Christ and shows the footprint of his resurrection, yet "the world" is willfully blind to it's existence and meaning, so I imagine the same would be true of the Ark.

Uhm, maybe you want to show evidences of that?

The world has already discovered the burial cloth which covered Christ and shows the footprint of his resurrection, yet "the world" is willfully blind to it's existence and meaning, so I imagine the same would be true of the Ark.

Are you referring to this?

http://www.shroud.com/

Because it is most likely a 14th century forgery.

Not "most likely". Definitively.

I don't think finding an Ark would prove that the Christian God exists any more than the finding of Troy proved that the Greek Gods existed.

Good point.

 

[Mark de Vries]

It would be rather cool, be honest. Such an amount of artifacts from that time, all preserved well? I'd be excited.

Will it affect my faith? Not really. It would be a nice bit of news, and possibly it will add an extra dimension to the flood story. But since we can't take that story literally, physical evidence won't affect it much. The message of the story, so to speak, is far more important than the number of animals on board the Ark, or the exact dimensions of it (unless you're a numerologist, of course).

 

[hohohopali]

It would be rather cool, be honest. Such an amount of artifacts from that time, all preserved well? I'd be excited.

Will it affect my faith? Not really. It would be a nice bit of news, and possibly it will add an extra dimension to the flood story. But since we can't take that story literally, physical evidence won't affect it much. The message of the story, so to speak, is far more important than the number of animals on board the Ark, or the exact dimensions of it (unless you're a numerologist, of course).

It would be pretty sensational due to all that could be learned by studying anything found inside, I agree...and I also think it would have a significant impact on religious communities.

Schliemann dedicated his life to finding Troy and this obsession added to the hype in the news as he dug at (and trampled) the site. It would be the same for the ark since there are many who have dedicated years trying to get at the mountain. Their reactions would be as 'front page' as the discovery itself.

Also, because Noah, according to the gospels, was mentioned by Jesus it would embolden those in Christian circles as well. Jesus speaking of the times of Noah add great impact to the firm and fastidious belief in creation as well as the idea of eventual and unavoidable punishment for evil lifestyles.

 

[Michael Chris]

Probably little to none.

 

[Marten]

One would think a wooden ship would have rotten away by now.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

But the unicorns never mde it onto the Ark, they were too busy playing silly games.

Okay let's all breakout the kleenex.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EPsuOEH1fY[/yt]

If an ark was found, how would you determine which ark it was?

Would you look for something etched in the wood somewhere like: "Noah loves Mrs Noah"?

True. It might be Gilgamesh's ark. Or Manu's. Or Ziusudra's. At one time everybody and their grandmother had an ark. People used to have buy one get one free Ark sales.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

If an ark was found, how would you determine which ark it was?

Would you look for something etched in the wood somewhere like: "Noah loves Mrs Noah"?

True. It might be Gilgamesh's ark. Or Manu's. Or Ziusudra's. At one time everybody and their grandmother had an ark. People used to have buy one get one free Ark sales.

Lots of Arks back in those times. All those arks buzzing around out of control, then collected into one vast Ark-Hive for future reference, no doubt under the supervision of an all-powerful Mon-Ark.

Ark-aeology is fun.

 

[Mark de Vries]

Also, because Noah, according to the gospels, was mentioned by Jesus it would embolden those in Christian circles as well. Jesus speaking of the times of Noah add great impact to the firm and fastidious belief in creation as well as the idea of eventual and unavoidable punishment for evil lifestyles.

But the presence of remains of an Ark, like others have said, doesn't automatically prove the existence or involvement of Noah. After all this time, I don't think anything can. The owner or user of the Ark would remain anonymous. Only in Scripture is the person of Noah connected to the Ark, and that is what Jesus' referral strengthens.

Still, for the average person it would be an encouragement: "Hey, maybe there's something to what this Christ fellow said after all..."
But for me, being a Christian, I don't think it would affect me in my faith life.

But it would still be cool.

 

[Captain Ice]

And the wood survived this long... how exactly?

Petrified Wood

 

[Dart]

No impact.

People of faith don't need the physical ark to affirm their beliefs. And you could parade every relic (and person) from the bible in front of a atheist and they would just call every bit of it fake.

Atheist: "I denial your very existence!"
Jesus: "I'm standing right in front of you." - wave hand in atheist's face - "Hello ..."

So in your absurd example, does this man claiming to be Jesus have any way of demonstrating his status as such? Or is he just some guy waving at me going "Hey, i'm jesus, now you MUST believe me!"

What reason do you have for thinking that when presented with rational and conclusive evidence, Atheists would still not believe in something? Because your statement flies right in the face of why a great deal of atheists actually are atheists.

Please, explain yourself.

Hey, I'm glad someone else picked up on this. it's total BS. Opposite of reality infact, because in reality people may believe stuff with no shred of evidence to back it up. That in my opinion is very wrong.

 

[cultcross]

And the wood survived this long... how exactly?

Petrified Wood

Odds of that happening? Minuscule. On an historical scale the amount of wood that's been petrified is an insignificantly tiny proportion. To happen to a whole boat, or at least enough of it to tell what it was?

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

They found a nail dating back to the time of Christ and could be one of the nails that was in his hands or feet and there was not so much a blip on the radar.

 

[Amaris]

They found a nail dating back to the time of Christ and could be one of the nails that was in his hands or feet and there was not so much a blip on the radar.

Something like that would be nearly impossible to know for several reasons. Firstly, the Biblical account of Christ doesn't even completely match up, and there are historical questions as to whether Jesus as we would know him ever actually existed. Secondly, there would be no way to prove that such a nail had been used in relation to the story of Jesus. It would be completely and wholly unsubstantiated. It would have as much likelihood of being a nail from the story as a block of timber said to be a part of the cross used to crucify him.

 

[ryan123450]

The world has already discovered the burial cloth which covered Christ and shows the footprint of his resurrection, yet "the world" is willfully blind to it's existence and meaning, so I imagine the same would be true of the Ark.

Are you referring to this?

http://www.shroud.com/

Because it is most likely a 14th century forgery.

And it has been recreated.

You've proven my point. "The world" has fixated on that one peice of evidence that the shroud is a fake, and totally ignored the literally hundreds of evidences that it is real.

These range from 1st century pollen samples, to the well known 3-D image that can be produced, to first century materials and methods of cloth production, to dozens of Jewish points of interest which lend support to it's authenticity, to it's link with the Sudarium of Oviedo (which is verifiably much older than the 14th century), to the correspondence of evidence with the bibical accounts, to dozens of medical forensic datapoints, to the fact that it's existence explains the origin of several liturgical and iconographical traditions in the early church, to so many more evidences that I can't sit here and list them all at once. Not to mention that the radio-carbon dating has been called into question on several grounds.

And as a matter of fact, that recent alleged "recreation" falls flat on it's face on several counts. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/arts-and-crafts-is-not-science/The shroud will never be reproduced because no one knows how it was produced. It's not a painting, a burn mark, or any other theory that has been floated to dismiss it's significance.

But since all of this information is readily avaiable on the internet (most likely even in that original link supplied) and it was ignored in support of that one piece of contrary data, the questionably arrived at radiocarbon dating, I don't expect to convince anyone by this post. People's minds have been made up already.

But I'm off topic anyway...

 

[Amaris]

You've proven my point. "The world" has fixated on that one peice of evidence that the shroud is a fake, and totally ignored the literally hundreds of evidences that it is real.

These range from 1st century pollen samples, to the well known 3-D image that can be produced, to first century materials and methods of cloth production, to dozens of Jewish points of interest which lend support to it's authenticity, to it's link with the Sudarium of Oviedo (which is verifiably much older than the 14th century), to the correspondence of evidence with the bibical accounts, to dozens of medical forensic datapoints, to the fact that it's existence explains the origin of several liturgical and iconographical traditions in the early church, to so many more evidences that I can't sit here and list them all at once. Not to mention that the radio-carbon dating has been called into question on several grounds.

And as a matter of fact, that recent alleged "recreation" falls flat on it's face on several counts. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/arts-and-crafts-is-not-science/The shroud will never be reproduced because no one knows how it was produced. It's not a painting, a burn mark, or any other theory that has been floated to dismiss it's significance.

But since all of this information is readily avaiable on the internet (most likely even in that original link supplied) and it was ignored in support of that one piece of contrary data, the questionably arrived at radiocarbon dating, I don't expect to convince anyone by this post. People's minds have been made up already.

But I'm off topic anyway...

So how is it known that the image on the shroud is that of Jesus? Even if it dated back to 1st century, how would it be Christ's specifically? You know, sepulchres and shrouds were quite common in those days. It would be like me holding up a nail and stating it was one of the nails that was used in the crucifixion of Jesus. I would have absolutely no supporting evidence other than wild, hopeful assumption. The shroud is the same. If, by some happenstance, it is from the 1st century, well, awesome, you've now narrowed it down to thousands of Jews.

Also, why would the body of Jesus make an after image on a cloth if it had only covered him for 3 days? Did the body of Jesus experience rapid degradation?

In a religion that extols pure, devoted faith, where God won't even appear to humans living on this earth, why would the Son of God leave evidence of His existence behind?

Lots and lots of questions. Personally, I believe the shroud of Turin is a fake. I believe it may be a very old piece of cloth, but it is not, and has never been, anything related to the story of Jesus.

I say this as a former Christian minister.

 

[ryan123450]

Ok I'll give my honest response to this as a Christian. Obviously, if the shroud of Turin has some connection to Jesus's death, it would have been created purposefully by God during the moment of his ressurrection exactly as evidence to leave behind for that event. Now obviously that's not going to convince every person living on this earth, but at the same time I have heard personal testimonies of people whose main impetus for conversion was originally caused by the Shroud.

And honestly, due to this "miraculous" image, the claim that has been made historically for who the man on the shroud is, the fact that he has been crucified, scourged, has had a crown of thorns placed on him, he is a Jew, was lanced in the side, and then not thrown in the garbage heap like all other crucifixion victims, it would be astronomically unlikely that (assuming this is a 1st century artifact) the man in question is not Jesus Christ.

 

[Amaris]

Ok I'll give my honest response to this as a Christian. Obviously, if the shroud of Turin has some connection to Jesus's death, it would have been created purposefully by God during the moment of his ressurrection exactly as evidence to leave behind for that event. Now obviously that's not going to convince every person living on this earth, but at the same time I have heard personal testimonies of people whose main impetus for conversion was originally caused by the Shroud.

Which means they based their faith on perceived evidence rather than on the virtue of faith itself. They planted seed in shallow soil.

And honestly, due to this "miraculous" image, the claim that has been made historically for who the man on the shroud is, the fact that he has been crucified, scourged, has had a crown of thorns placed on him, he is a Jew, was lanced in the side, and then not thrown in the garbage heap like all other crucifixion victims, it would be astronomically unlikely that (assuming this is a 1st century artifact) the man in question is not Jesus Christ.

However, that information cannot be taken on any level of certainty. Just as the writings of Josephus were tampered with to include a quick account of Jesus, this is something that could have been easily forged. Remember the whole selling sacred relics business? It even continues into today, but it was rampant during the first handful of centuries as the Church grew. Just think about how much money the "actual" shroud of Christ would fetch.

There is no proof whatsoever that the shroud is in any way connected to the historical, much less the spiritual Jesus.

 

[Kestra]

But the unicorns never mde it onto the Ark, they were too busy playing silly games.

I had totally forgotten about that song!