Christian ark quest fizzles

[Flaherty]

In April businessman and Christian activist Daniel McGivern announced with great fanfare a planned summer expedition to Mount Ararat in Turkey. The project, he said, would prove that the fabled Noah's ark was buried there.
Explorers have long searched for the ark on the Turkish mountain. At a news conference in Washington, D.C., McGivern presented satellite images, which he claimed show a human-made object—Noah's ark—nestled in the ice and snow some 15,000 feet (4,570 meters) up the mountain.

...The announcement received generous news coverage. But the U.S. $900,000 expedition quickly hit a snag: The Turkish government refused to grant the explorers permission to climb the mountain. Soon, the mission itself was put on ice.

But how credible was the expedition in the first place?

...The choice of expedition leader—a Turkish academic named Ahmet Ali Arslan, who claims to have climbed Mount Ararat 50 times in 40 years—also raised a red flag with those familiar with previous expeditions.

Arslan was involved in a 1993 documentary, aired on CBS television, which claimed to have found the ark. Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax, raising concerns about Arslan's testimony.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0920_040920_noahs_ark.html

[TragicMonkey]

What exactly makes people think Mt Ararat is where Noah landed? Is that in the Bible? I always assumed the legend was local color added by the Armenian Christian Church back in the fourth century.

It's a bit off-track for someone supposed to be settling down in the Fertile Crescent.

[Brown]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What exactly makes people think Mt Ararat is where Noah landed? Is that in the Bible?Gen. 8:4: "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Contrary to popular belief, Genesis does NOT say that the ark rested on Mount Ararat (what is now called Greater Ararat). Rather, the ark rested upon mountains in a region called Ararat.

The region that was known as Ararat in ancient times did not have Greater Ararat in it.

[Brown]

From encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/ararat.asp):The tradition that Mt. Ararat is the resting place of Noah's ark is based on a misreading of Gen. 8.4, which properly reads “upon the mountains of Ararat,� indicating a country or region. The land or the kingdom of Ararat (fl. c.9th-7th cent. BC), called in Assyrian Urartu, was situated between the river Araks and the lakes Van and Rezaiyeh. It included all the land later called Armenia.I believe Isaac Asimov, in his Bible commentaries, includes a discussion of the location of the kingdom of Ararat.

[jan]

God in his infinite grace surely deposited an ark in the region of Ararat and on top of mount Ararat.

[TragicMonkey]

And let's not forget that Urartu was actually founded by the refugees from the older kingdom of Mitanni to the south.

[Dogwood]

For that matter, why would anyone who believed the ark existed ever expect to find it? What do they think Noah and sons made their first barn out of? their houses? their animal pens, the fires for cooking and sacrifices?

All the other wood on the planets surface would have been rotting for a year.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Dogwood
For that matter, why would anyone who believed the ark existed ever expect to find it? What do they think Noah and sons made their first barn out of? their houses? their animal pens, the fires for cooking and sacrifices?

All the other wood on the planets surface would have been rotting for a year.

It's clearly miraculous!

Reminds me of the medieval cities that made rival and contradictory claims to relics. False but amusing legend has it that one of the medieval popes settled the controversy between two of them by deciding that the first city had the skull of John the Baptist "as a young man" and the second city had his skull "from when he was older".

As for rotting, perhaps the Ark was constructed of Styrofoam. It might still be there!

[Brown]

It seems like every ten years or so, somebody gets some hare-brained idea to go looking for the lost ark (not the ark of the covenant) in Turkey. I have listened to at least two lectures--by different people and about ten years apart--in which they claimed that they SAW the ark. They described it in great detail, and reported that it was very well-preserved, considering its age. They both described the ark as a multi-story structure with multiple compartments, and although it was partially buried under the snow, it was easily seen from the air.

Both speakers had a slight credibility problem, however, in that neither of them had any photographs to back up their reports. They both claimed that they ran out of film just as they found the ark! They therfore asked those in attendance for donations, so that they could make a return expedition to Turkey and document this astonishing discovery.

Jesus said, "Be not deceived" (Luke 21:8), but unfortunately many of the faithful do not heed this advice. They give their money to those who claim to speak in Jesus's name and who do their darndest to deceive the faithful.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Brown
Gen. 8:4: "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Contrary to popular belief, Genesis does NOT say that the ark rested on Mount Ararat (what is now called Greater Ararat). Rather, the ark rested upon mountains in a region called Ararat.

The region that was known as Ararat in ancient times did not have Greater Ararat in it. This information is so readily accessible, that the focus of the ark quest upon the mountain currently known as Ararat demonstrates the very pinnacle of willful ignorance. This is akin to thinking that people named Moses are descendents of the biblical original.

Oh, but does it outstupid the torturous retrofitting of all the animals on Earth into the ark? Hmmm.

[Zep]

It's clear to all but the religiously dense that expeditions such as these are predicated on what can only be described generously as monumental asurdities, the less generous descriptions involving barnyard animals, scatology and libel. So the only real pertinent question is not "how", but "why" do they even get started in the first place.

And the answer lies in the people running these expeditions: Each time they head out on one of these momentous treks, gullible fools give them great gobs of money to fulfil a this search for the holy grail (Noah's Ark is just one of these scams, actually). The fact is that these scammers are simply having a four weeks all-paid holiday in Turkey at the best time of year, and then they are feted on their return as wise and wonderful researchers by the very fools who financed them. There's no need to actually publish any genuine notarised scientific reports to academia. All that is required to carry this off as a raging success is a totally amateur slide-show for the gullible bunch, plus (totally fictional) stories of hardship and momentous discovery on the dig site (i.e. the Turkish beach). To the gullible fools, controversy between real scientists and these "heroes" simply fuels the notion that the scammers are put-upon God-fearing scientists, while tending to obscure their lucrative scam.

So what is it REALLY about? Simple. Not God, not fame, it's money!

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Brown
It seems like every ten years or so, somebody gets some hare-brained idea to go looking for the lost ark (not the ark of the covenant) in Turkey. I have listened to at least two lectures--by different people and about ten years apart--in which they claimed that they SAW the ark. They described it in great detail, and reported that it was very well-preserved, considering its age. They both described the ark as a multi-story structure with multiple compartments, and although it was partially buried under the snow, it was easily seen from the air.

Both speakers had a slight credibility problem, however, in that neither of them had any photographs to back up their reports. They both claimed that they ran out of film just as they found the ark! They therfore asked those in attendance for donations, so that they could make a return expedition to Turkey and document this astonishing discovery.

Jesus said, "Be not deceived" (Luke 21:8), but unfortunately many of the faithful do not heed this advice. They give their money to those who claim to speak in Jesus's name and who do their darndest to deceive the faithful.

Hmm gotta go with the money thing too, hadnt given it much thought before but a good angle.

(Whenever I hear of things like this I just file them in interesting.)

Besides why would God need anybody to present Himself to the world, why would He require a expedition group or a spokesman or anybody when He made an appearance. It should be clear without explaination from anyone. This is also what Luke is getting at.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Besides why would God need anybody to present Himself to the world, why would He require a expedition group or a spokesman or anybody when He made an appearance. It should be clear without explaination from anyone. This is also what Luke is getting at. The quote from Luke pertained to Jesus telling his followers about the final days, and that some would come along and claim to be him or would otherwise falsely claim to be the annointed one or know how to find the annointed one. It reported elsewhere that Jesus cautioned against other scoundrels, including some who would purport to act in the name of the Lord (e.g., Matt. 7:21-23).

The book of Mark (10:19) quotes Jesus as saying "Do not defraud" is one of the Ten Commandments, and even though this quotation arguably puts Jesus technically in error (there is no specific commandment pertaining to defrauding), it also places Jesus on firm moral ground: defrauding is wrong. (The authors of Matthew and Luke, apparently using the gospel attributed to Mark as a source, corrected the quotation so that Jesus omits "Do not defraud" from the Ten Commandments.)

The gospels and the book of Acts have plenty of examples of Jesus or his followers condemning the fleecing of the faithful.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Brown
The gospels and the book of Acts have plenty of examples of Jesus or his followers condemning the fleecing of the faithful.

Naturally. You don't want anyone else shearing your sheep, do you?

[tdn]

That raises an interesting moral dilemma -- is it OK to take money from morons who so willingly give it to you?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by tdn
That raises an interesting moral dilemma -- is it OK to take money from morons who so willingly give it to you?

You can't really be expected to protect people from their own stupidity all the time. Drawing the line between different scams is tricky, though. Taking your money while promising Dr Abacha of Lagos will be depositing US Dollars One Million into your bank account is a con. Taking your money while promising you eternal life in Heaven is apparently not a con.

(I try to be ethical, but oh how I'd love a tiny percentage of that rich, rich Moonie money!)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Brown
The quote from Luke pertained to Jesus telling his followers about the final days, and that some would come along and claim to be him or would otherwise falsely claim to be the annointed one or know how to find the annointed one. It reported elsewhere that Jesus cautioned against other scoundrels, including some who would purport to act in the name of the Lord (e.g., Matt. 7:21-23).

The book of Mark (10:19) quotes Jesus as saying "Do not defraud" is one of the Ten Commandments, and even though this quotation arguably puts Jesus technically in error (there is no specific commandment pertaining to defrauding), it also places Jesus on firm moral ground: defrauding is wrong. (The authors of Matthew and Luke, apparently using the gospel attributed to Mark as a source, corrected the quotation so that Jesus omits "Do not defraud" from the Ten Commandments.)

The gospels and the book of Acts have plenty of examples of Jesus or his followers condemning the fleecing of the faithful.

Yeaaa, was a little disjointed there I think I was thinking of several things at once and tied it with what I said about God really not needing a spokegroup or man to announce Himself and it got a little off. sorry bout that, you are correct in your quotes above.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Taking your money while promising you eternal life in Heaven is apparently not a con.


Yes it is a con dont believe it isnt. I remember that Schuller saying God will bring him home if he didnt raise enough $$ by a certain date


For him and those that do like that the answer is in Matthew 7.

[Kitty Chan]

oops :)

[Brown]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Yes it is a con dont believe it isnt. I remember that Schuller saying God will bring him home if he didnt raise enough $$ by a certain date....Actually, it was Oral Roberts who pulled this unethical stunt. The image of hundreds of widows emptying their bank accounts to come to Oral's "rescue" is sickening.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Brown
Actually, it was Oral Roberts who pulled this unethical stunt. The image of hundreds of widows emptying their bank accounts to come to Oral's "rescue" is sickening.

I've always like that guy, simply because he actually uses the name "Oral". Although one is forced to wonder if his parents imagined their child was conceived in that fashion, and thus chose the name.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Brown
Actually, it was Oral Roberts who pulled this unethical stunt. The image of hundreds of widows emptying their bank accounts to come to Oral's "rescue" is sickening.

apologies to Mr Scheuller:)

[Zep]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I've always like that guy, simply because he actually uses the name "Oral". Although one is forced to wonder if his parents imagined their child was conceived in that fashion, and thus chose the name. The just mispelled "Arlo" on the birth registration form, that's all.

[Wally]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I've always like that guy, simply because he actually uses the name "Oral". Although one is forced to wonder if his parents imagined their child was conceived in that fashion, and thus chose the name.


He has a brother who’s a faith healing proctologist.
.
.
.
Are you ready?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anal Roberts.

:D

[Fidelio]

***gives Wally a "welcome to the board " smack***