The Bible is true, but what you heard about it is not.

[shauk100]

I find I have to agree with Rev. Hassertt's review - much of which could equally apply to the lamented, and lamentable, abelcainsbrother, aka ACB.

Your two part "letter" - and indeed your claims - is of little value absent a peer-review of what you call "proper preterism" - you first need to submit/publish such a paper for academic examination.

You appear to believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God, whilst taking translations with a pinch of salt. Your belief that the book of Revelations refers primarily to past - rather than future - events is nothing that a Catholic couldn't have told any (particularly American) Protestant.

Given that your belief in God stems from a belief that "the bible" is the "inerrant Word of God", this leaves you standing on nothing.

I trust that you won't take any of this as an ad hominen but I have the sinking feeling that I'm dealing with a ACB sound-alike whose views on the bible and what it means are pathologically skewed by preconceived notions of some revelatory nature known only to yourself.

Kindest regards,

James

Hassert is a FULL PRETERIST, thus he has made up his mind and won't listen to logic that it is impossible for the remaining events (prophecy) of Rev 20:8ff (and forward) to the end of the book, CANNOT be fulfilled yet. Rev 20:4 BEGAN ca. 70AD (which also began the thousand years) with the destruction of Jerusalem (the great whore) and we are now living in the period after the thousand (Greek plural word -- not a literal thousand but signified by the binding and release of adversary) years and adversary (satan) is now loosed on the world scene wreaking havoc with the gog and magog nations of the middle east coming over here, being deceived and waging war by this adversary (satan).

 

[Deleted member 619]

Do you know what the word 'organic' actually means?

organic: of, relating to, or derived from living matter. Just as I thought.

Errr, no. Now go and find out what it means to a chemist (hint: it's given in the same (un-cited) source that you use, just a few lines down), so that you understand what the statement you made actually meant.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This equivocation happens a lot, but it never seems intentional.

I'm willing to stipulate, though this wasn't an isolated trigger and, of course, I was a little peeved at the response to my dissection of his opening gambit with 'how would you like to proceed?' with what I perceived to be faux-disingenuity, a perception garnered from a not insignificant experience of the supernaturalist aetiology.

 

[shauk100]

Errr, no. Now go and find out what it means to a chemist (hint: it's given in the same (un-cited) source that you use, just a few lines down), so that you understand what the statement you made actually meant.

Do you mean containing carbon atoms from matter in its various forms? How does that negate my assertion?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Errr, no. Now go and find out what it means to a chemist (hint: it's given in the same (un-cited) source that you use, just a few lines down), so that you understand what the statement you made actually meant.

Do you mean containing carbon atoms from matter in its various forms? How does that negate my assertion?

Because your assertion is predicated on living matter being the source, but that's not what it means, it means merely that it contains carbon.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If I am not mistaken, shauk100 is talking about this:

This is a natural formation that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geology can see from the images alone. Yet, shauk100 believes that (s)he knows more about it than the geologists and archaeologists that have researched it. One wonders what allows a biblical scholar to over ride the findings of actual scientists that have researched this formation.

Can't you see that is a non-argument out of whole cloth? It's the age old "So and so doesn't believe it - so it can't be right because they have a degree." That's one method I learned a long time ago to stay away from, and it would do you well to do the same. Did you ever realize the majority is often wrong? All that's doing is putting your confidence in men, when scripture says (right in the middle of the Bible) Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. So, I evaluate from His word and if I'm wrong, then at least I'm not guilty of not doing my own homework.

You are accusing me of making an argument from authority (using proper terminology in this discussion would go a long way in helping me take you seriously) while also relying on the Galileo Gambit. Please, if you have a problem with logical fallacies, do not rely on them yourself. However, we are arguing on an Ethernet forum, thus citing sources (which are written by authorities) appears to be the only way one is able to provide evidence. Please do inform us on a better way of providing evidence through the Ethernet. If you wish, you could always take me there and have me actually explain this to you in person (however, that would have to be on your dime).

Furthermore, I once again must ask, how does your training in bible studies allow you to evaluate geological and archaeological findings? It appears that without being able to answer this question, evaluating from the bible to reality seems to be as useful as chasing one's tail, and not actual research.

FYI, there are several doctors (Baumgardner, Shea, and another one I can't remember, but it's easy to find) and geologist who endorsed the site, but I don't even need that because I have what I call proper preterism, which has not (in over 10 years) been refuted by the naysayers.

Citation needed. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In addition, what is proper preterism and how does it allow you to know something about a geological formation without knowing about geology?

But you said "anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geology can see from the images alone." so why don't you tell us why it's so easily refuted by looking at the image alone.

Fair enough. However, did the thought ever cross your mind as to why I was able to pinpoint this as your Noah’s Ark when you were only giving the vaguest of references to it? I also have to ask, did you ever think for one second why I put that sentence in and why it was the first sentence? It is because (apparently, unlike you) I have relevant rudimentary knowledge of geology, archaeology, and paleontology. Thus, at a glance from all the photos I have seen of it, it looks nothing like a human made structure and wholly natural.

Let us start with some paleontology. This is what wood looks like when it fossilizes:

See how that looks nothing like the “walls” of the formation? The reason I am bring this up is because the “walls” are obviously made of stone, yet they are not made of petrified wood. Now how could that be possible for a wooden structure? Perhaps gopherwood was made of limestone or it was a miracle.

Now, we can take an archaeological look at the formation. The first thing to note is that for a structure that was made up of ~99% wood, there is no timber to be found at the formation. That is actually why I started by comparing what you see at the formation with petrified wood, that way you would not be able to just claim all the wood turned to stone. That seems to be truly amazing and would lead me to conclude that this could not have been a mostly wooden structure, if it were a structure at all. Even a quick Google image search of Chaco Canyon (a site I am far more familiar with) reveals loads of wood, yet that site is mainly a stone and adobe structure. Furthermore, based on the overwhelming amount of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology that has come from Chaco Canyon, it is easy to conclude that a vast amount of wood is found there. Thus again, where is the timber of the Ark?

Lastly, if we take a geological eye at the formation and compare it to synclines:

Above is a textbook syncline. Look at how the strata are turned up at the surface and looks like walls? That is because it is making a valley. Now compare that to other synclines seen from the surface:

Just a few other small synclines seen from above. See how all of them have stonewalls sticking out around them? I will admit that these small synclines are pretty special and rare, but are found in various other places across the world. Most of the time synclines are enormous (like the Albuquerque basin I live in).

Thus, we have a formation made out of rock and soil with stonewalls and a little valley inside of it. No timber (petrified or otherwise) found within it. Yet, you would want us to conclude that this is a human made structure? That is truly laughable and displays a gross ignorance of geology and archaeology.

 

[Bango Skank]

The Concordant Literal says this:

Mar 5:23 And he is entreating Him much, saying that "My little daughter is having her last gasp! ...that, "Coming, Thou mayest be placing Thy hands on her, that she may be saved and should be living!"

"Having her last gasp" is same as "Dying."

Plus, what about this??

Mar 5:35 While He is still speaking, they are coming from the chief of the synagogue, saying that "Your daughter died. Why are you still bothering the Teacher?

Different person in a different point in story thus irrelevant (but confirms she was still living moments before).

 

[shauk100]

Because your assertion is predicated on living matter being the source, but that's not what it means, it means merely that it contains carbon.

So, it could not had always been a rock.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So, it could not had always been a rock.

Why not? Are you aware of some physical process that prevents rock from containing carbon? Are you even aware that there is a class of formations that react with atmospheric carbon dioxide, producing calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate veins in the rock? Or that diamonds are essentially rock made entirely of elemental carbon? Or that it's the 15th most abundant element in the planet's crust, or the 4th most abundant in the universe?

This all seems recognisably ex recto on your part to me. You're literally pulling your answers out of your arse, aren't you?

Edit: Additional
Edit 2: Subject/verb agreement :doh:

 

[shauk100]

Lastly, if we take a geological eye at the formation and compare it to synclines:

Above is a textbook syncline. Look at how the strata are turned up at the surface and looks like walls? That is because it is making a valley. Now compare that to other synclines seen from the surface:

Just a few other small synclines seen from above. See how all of them have stonewalls sticking out around them? I will admit that these small synclines are pretty special and rare, but are found in various other places across the world. Most of the time synclines are enormous (like the Albuquerque basin I live in).

Thus, we have a formation made out of rock and soil with stonewalls and a little valley inside of it. No timber (petrified or otherwise) found within it. Yet, you would want us to conclude that this is a human made structure? That is truly laughable and displays a gross ignorance of geology and archaeology.

NOTE, I DO NOT ENDORSE THISE SITE IN ANY WAY, BUT AGREE WITH THIS ARTICLE.

Read this, then tell me it is not a man-made structure, and it will reveal your true character. ......

THE ARK'S GEOMETRY AND THE GOLDEN RATIO
Figure 2 summarizes the relationships of those measurements and of the depth mentioned in Genesis. The major transverse chord (maximum beam) is located at the center of the moon pool. The expression "moon pool" is chosen because the vertical hole through the vessel reminds us of the vertical hole in an off shore drill rig vessel. The Ark's moon pool provided forced air ventilation via the roof opening (wave action), access for handling anchor stones, access for dumping garbage and manure, and provided a "softening" of the buoyancy amidships. This last was crucial to maintenance of the structural integrity of the vessel in heavy seas. Without it, the hogging and sagging stresses could have demolished the vessel.

The distance from this major chord to the stern of the vessel is 3819 inches.

[1] 6180 / 3819 = 1.618

The distance to the bow, therefore is the difference or 2361 inches.

[2] 6180 / 2361 = 1.618 x 1.618 (& is 1 + 1.618)

The beam was established by multiplying the desired deck area by 1.6180 then dividing that by the length of the vessel. This describes the smallest rectangle into which the boat shape will fit. Ea's (Yahweh's?) requirement was that the area be 44,100 square feet (from the Epic of Gilgamesh). The Genesis account is nearly the same area. It differed mostly in that they used a cubit of 20.6" as compared to the great cubit of 21" and asked for the area by stating one of the principle dimensions. Because the shape of the Ark was developed from a "camber" curve and ellipse (shown in Figure 2), the area inside the deck "circumference" exceeds the 44,100 square feet by exactly 5289.67 square feet. The designers therefore assigned this as the required area to be taken out by putting a rectangular hole through the raft. The Moon pool dimensions approximate this area difference. Note that this is a spectacular "coincidence" detractors would ask us to swallow as chance.

Their design then requires the moon pool area be 761,713 square inches. The total area inside of the "deck edge outline" was 7,112,113 square inches. The area of the deck is then the desired 6,350,400 square inches. This area, multiplied by 1.61803399 is the area of the circumscribed rectangle or 10,275,163 square inches. The rectangle width (and maximum beam of the vessel) is this larger area (10,275,163) divided by the desired length of 6180 inches. This was how Noah decided how wide to build

his vessel. The width of the rectangle is 1663 inches, 79.17 great Babylonian cubits, 80.73 Egyptian Cubits or 138 1/2 feet!

[3] (1662.65 x 6180) / (44,100 x 144in^2/ft^2) = 1.6180

This validates the lofting method. The camber circle and ellipse is a required method to produce a hydrodynamic shape that has exactly one acre of real deck space while still including a functioning moon pool; and, be 6180 inches long. (10,000 / phi or 10,000 x [phi - 1]).

[4] 10,000 x (1.6180 - 1) = 6180

Noah was nothing, if not consistent. He went on to determine the length of the moon pool by making it equal to the vessel's length divided by (L / 1 + 1.6180). The width (323 inches) was simply the required area divided by its length. The computer faired lines showed the measured 138 feet to not have been taken at the widest point. The measurement was made at the intersection of iron readings forward of the place the computer identified as the most probable widest point. The fitted curve shows the maximum beam occurs behind this measured point and not at it.

No one in 1985 had tumbled to the principles controlling the location of the maximum beam. There being no transverse line of iron masses located there, the maximum beam wasn't directly measured. Your author was similarly ignorant of the need to measure the beam at this point in 1990. (Your author didn't tumble to the pattern in the artifact or of planet period until August 19, 1991. One wonders how much more there is that we are not seeing.) Note, however, that the curve for the deck edge developed by the camber curve fits the actual dimensions only if the major chord occurs at the center of the moon pool.

Genesis records the depth to be 30 cubits. 1663 divided by the square of phi (2.6180), produces 635 inches, 30.24 great Babylonian cubits or 30.82 Egyptian cubits.

[5] 1663 / 635 approximates 1.6180 x 1.6180

The length of 6180 inches is 294.28 great Babylonian cubits and 300 Egyptian cubits. If the molded area of the deck is 6350400 square inches, this, divided by the length gives an average width of 1027.57 inches, 48.93 great Babylonian cubits or 49.88 Egyptian cubits. Genesis lists the width as 50 cubits. It appears the average width is intended and not the maximum beam. This is consistent with the concept that expressions of area in that earlier age was typically "X" cubits by "Y" cubits. It may be that they had no word for area, for volume, etc.

Given the variety of lengths the ancients called a cubit, it appears that both the Sumerian and Genesis accounts are "true". Only the length of the cubit differs slightly. The fact the phi ratio shows up in units of measure only in inches, it also appears that it was the inch and not the cubit that served as the actual construction dimensioning unit. The cubit appears to be a unit of measure employed by later examiners. However, the iron indications were approximately one cubit apart throughout the artifact. The clincher on this assumption of depth (recognizing Noah's penchant for symmetry) is that when the average width is added to the calculated depth, the sum equals the maximum beam!

In all of this, the slight variations from "perfect" are unavoidable because of the inexactness of the irrational number, itself.

LOFTING THE LINES
The lines of a vessel are lofted (drawn or laid out) using calculated offsets and curve fitting techniques. OFFSETS are simply the shape of the hull in a coordinate system. The numbers are distances of points along the deck edge from vessel centerline and from the bow. Today, we would loft these lines as follows:

Draw a circle at the point of maximum chord (beam) and divide one quadrant of the circle into equal angles (eight, in this example).
Divide the distance aft along the centerline into the same number of equal spaces (8)
Draw lines parallel to the center line, aft from the intersections of the angle lines with the circle the angle lines "divide".
Draw lines athwartship from the centerline space markers. (This is "up and down" on the paper, sideways across the vessel.) Fit a smooth curve to the intersecting points of these longitudinal and transverse construction lines.
The technique is most often applied to shaping a weather deck in cross section for modern ships. This is called "determining its camber" and is intended to promote water runoff. The phrase given to the process is "developing a curve from a camber circle". Occasionally, the process is used to shape a rudder cross section with the rudder stock to be located at the center of the camber circle.

This process isn't used today to shape the [plan view] deck edge in steel ships. Modern vessels have decks larger and of slightly different shape than the hull at the waterline. I.e., the bow plate is usually flared to deflect water from a crashing sea. The reed rafts of the Egyptians and Peruvians had "vertical sides" down from the deck to the water. Developing the shape of the deck with a camber circle is more applicable to the reed raft construction geometry than it is to either wood or steel ship geometry. The use of an ellipse drawing technique to shape the water breaking forward structure of a modern ship is similarly limited to rudders, nozzles, straight sided (vertically) vessels and "bulbous bows" on steel ships.

Figure 2 shows the curved shape drawn using the measured dimensions from "The Ark of Noah" overlaid by a shape developed using the above "modern" procedure. The differences between the nine transverse dimensions and the percentage of width for each are:

Measured transverse: developed transverse %
420 inches (aft) 380.97 -9.3
756 " 696.272 -7.9
923.5* " 907.35 -1.7
1032 " 1040.326 + .807
1196.5* " 1226.28 +2.4
1440 " 1447.49 + .52
1608 " 1550.28 -3.59
1656 (fwd) 1600.41 -3.36
1485 " 1383.85 -6.81


* These dimensions were "faired" by the computer, not recorded from direct measurement. They were faired without regard to any relationship to phi (or to any other imposed "pattern").

The departure of the dimensioned and faired curve from the lofted lines is primarily an "increase" in width. This is reasonable, considering that the sides of a vessel tend to "splay out" when grounded and decomposing.

The vessel characteristics that result from the actual dimensions vary only slightly from those relating to the theoretical shape. These characteristics were enumerated in a previous article published in January of 1992, Catastrophism and Ancient History. They are:

Light ship draft 25.75', Deep load draft, max.; 45.08'.
Light ship displacement; 23,596 long tons (2240 LB/ton).
Total displacement at maximum load; 48,219 LT.
Beam (at waterplane); 136.83' (At the waterline).
Depth; 51'.
Length; 513' (At the waterline).
Block Coefficient with capacity load; .534
Distance Keel to Light ship center of gravity; 52.5'.
Distance Keel to Deep load ship CG; 64.55'.
Distance Keel to Light ship center of buoyancy; 17.608'.
Distance Keel to deep load ship CB; 26.46'.
Light ship GM (distance between cg and metacenter); 56.9'.
Ship loaded to capacity GM; 3.17'.

Stability assumptions were:

The depth = the beam divided by the square of phi.
To account for the roundness of the hill, the length at the loaded draft waterline was taken as two feet shorter and the beam one and three quarters feet narrower
than the deck edge dimensions. This deviation is to maintain a conservative stance and wasn't used in the lofting analysis.
The section shape approximated the section used by later reed rafts in Peru and North Africa.
THE ANCIENT INCH
There is another monument from antiquity in which the inch appears prominently as the unit of measure. It is the Great Pyramid of Egypt. This artifact shows both the golden ratio, phi, and the number, pi.

There is a protrusion called the "boss" located in a side wall of the grand gallery of the Great Pyramid. The gallery is the passage down toward the "king's chamber. This "boss" is a half round protrusion of granite "on edge", five inches high, 2 1/2 inches in radius and 1.001 inches thick. (Smyth, in his dissertation on the subject a century ago, explains even that .001" difference. The boss is closer to the English inch as the inch existed before 1700 C.E.)

The sides of the boss are polished flat and are co-planar. The boss' only function seems to have been to record the unit of measure to which the pyramid was constructed. We now suspect it was to record the unit of measure as a "standard" for a much larger society. See "The Great Pyramid" by Piazzi Smyth, Bell Publishing Company, New York, 1990 edition, Pages 209, 290...

An incident is worth noting here. Smyth was castigated a bit for claiming the height of the Pyramid (5832.96 inches), multiplied by 1,000,000,000 was deliberately equal to the Earth's mean orbit radius and the inch being "exactly" 1/500,000,000 the polar diameter of Earth. When the distance to the Sun was accurately determined to be 93,000,000 miles, Smyth's 92,094,000 miles was too great a miss.

Consideration by Smyth's detractors should have been given to the implications of Pepy's Huge Diary and ancient calendars showing the pyramid was constructed at a time the Earth's orbit period was 360 days and not 365 1/4 days. The mean radius associated with the shorter year is 92,096,000 miles! The Etruscan and Roman ten month year had 36 days each, there are 360 "day statues" north of Tokyo, The Mayas had 72, five day weeks, etc. All had to be changed after the eighth century, B.C.E. to incorporate five extra days.

The association of the technologies (Sumerian, Chaldean and Egyptian) with modern English units of measure raises the obvious question, how did the inch and the acre come to England from Ante-diluvian Sumer and Egypt? similarly, why England and not other, closer countries? Did residents of England survive the world catastrophe, after being related to the ancient culture? Or, did people survive the catastrophe elsewhere and migrate to England shortly thereafter? However the inch got to England, it had to be physically taken there deliberately. Not many citizens of our world run around with a sample of the exact inch on their persons!

Other papers and books propose the mechanism and relationships among the change in year length, the flood, the use of large stones to resist floods, etc. See "Catastrophism and the Old Testament" (The Mars-Earth Conflicts) by Donald Wesley Patten, Pacific Meridian Publishing Company, Seattle, Washington, 1988. Also available is The "Recent Organization of the Solar System" by Patten and Windsor. Those interested in future orbit changes (and the obvious implication regarding past orbit changes) might read Freedman's previously mentioned "Gravity's Revenge."

SUSPICIONS
We now can step beyond our temerity and clearly itemize what is being said in this paper.

The inch and not the cubit was the standard of measure used in the design and lofting of the vessel. The "length" unit of measure in the ante-diluvian world was the inch (at least in ship and pyramid building). The "cubit" was a later and/or additional unit and varied a bit among cultures. Accounts of the Ark, written after the flood, even though a long time ago, described the Ark in their respective cubits, but without a decimal system. The builders used the inch. There is even an ancient decimal system implied here. This is particularly interesting because the Egyptians used a base 60 system and had no zero.
One can begin to appreciate the fervor and dedication of scientists in all disciplines to claiming this particular artifact "cannot be Noah's Ark". With the exhibition of such advanced technology, the opposition of much of the world's religious community is understandable.

Both the inch and the acre came to modern England from ancient Chaldea, Sumer and Egypt. These units traveled through the veil of time, both in concept and precise size, virtually unchanged (at least until the last three centuries). These may, in fact, have come to the British Isles before the flood. If arriving later, some immediate survivors of that catastrophe must have emigrated to Britain in order to pass on their units of measure. They must also have "carried with them" a "standard inch".
The cultures that fashioned both the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Ark of Noah (Utnapishtim, Nu, etc.) had a common technology, at least regarding units of measure, a fascination with the golden ratio and the ability to construct complex shapes with great precision.
The ancient people maintained a standard measure somewhere, much as our modern scientists did for years in the Archives of Paris, France. A reasonable supposition is that the stone record in the great pyramid standardized the inch for a much wider area than just Egypt. When your author began his career, the definition of a meter was "the distance between two scribed marks on a platinum-iridium bar located in the Archives of Paris France and maintained at 20 degrees Celsius." The inch was defined as .0254 times that distance. The meter has since been redefined as "1,650,763.73 times the wavelength of the orange light emitted when a gas consisting of the pure krypton isotope of mass number 86 is excited in a electrical discharge". The modern inch, therefore is 41,929.39874 times that particular wavelength.
Divine inspiration had to do only with those generalities listed in the scriptures, i.e., size and function. The technology for how to comply with the inspired requirements was widespread and pre-existed the construction both of the pyramid and of the Ark.
After Noah and the flood, people examined the Ark very carefully. Its deck length, many transverse dimensions and its depth were measured. The deck area was then carefully computed and recorded variously as "an IKU", "120 by 120 cubits" and "300 by 50 cubits". This follows from the fact the deck area comes down to us in two different sets of numbers. Genesis' 300 by 50 cubits (Egyptian of 20.6" each) and Gilgamesh's 120 by 120 cubits (Great Babylonian of 21" each). The Gilgamesh account of the deck area is verified using the great cubit of Babylon. The Genesis account is verified in giving actual length and actual average width, using a cubit 2% smaller than the great cubit of Babylon but providing an area within .24% of the Gilgamesh account.
Both the Ark and the Great Pyramid of Giza were built before the flood of Noah.
Pi (3.141593...), Phi (1.618033989...) and perhaps "e" were known to the architect(s) of the Ark and of the Pyramid of Giza. Also, it isn't just that the golden ratio was known as an "interesting number". The real world physics of things shaped around this number were also known; perhaps to a greater extent than is practiced today. The requirement that all visible planets have to fit into certain narrow bands, defined as functions of the square of phi, bounded by Saturn's and Jupiter's periods was known and revered by them.
The lofting (patterned lay out procedure) of ship's curves, using the "camber" circle to produce "parabolic-like" lines for smooth, vibration damped water flow wasn't "first" developed in modern times by the National Aeronautical and Civil Administration. The NACA 0024 balanced foil shown on page 327 of Abbott and Doenhoff's book nearly perfectly portrays the Ark's shape if the foil camber circle's center is moved from .3 times the length aft of the bow to .382 times the length, aft; and the offsets are increased by 15.9%. The procedure is ante-diluvian in original use.
The lofting technique of forming an ellipse is similarly ancient. (There is evidence at the Henges in England and in the ancient Western hemisphere observatories in the Andes, that ancient people employed ellipses for showing celestial relationships in their monuments. The Ark and the epic of Gilgamesh make it evident that they also knew how to calculate the area of the ellipse; a process requiring pi. Area = pi x a x b where a and b are the semi axes of the ellipse.
(Some wistful geologists argue that the Turkish site is "natural" and that ancients measured it and invented the story. This presupposes the level of technology extant thousands of years ago included the ability to accurately measure ellipses, developed curves, and calculate areas in several different units of measure. Like finding an anatomically modern skeleton in undisturbed earth beneath precambien granite, it only changes the way in which accepted views of the past err. Cremo and Thompson include a record of such a find in their publication "The Hidden History of Man" and their out of print book, "Forbidden Archaeology".)

The design of the Ark was successful. The shape provided maneuverability, stability, low structural stress, good sea keeping characteristics, forced air ventilation (wave action in the moon pool), overboard discharge without side scuppers (holes in the sides, or freeing ports, with swinging plates), etc. It employed iron in its construction but avoided long electrical conductors from roof to sea.
The basic ark material was non-conducting, much like a modern mine sweeper. With 200 mph winds and 100 mph current, this had to be an important feature. Frying in a lightening strike isn't being "saved from the flood". The World suspended between the tips of a bull's horns, the references to "the sword of the Lord", etc. all suggest people saw a heavenly image similar to the one they would see from Jupiter as Io passes overhead; and for the same electromagnetic reason.

The structural integrity of the Ark was sound. This is evidenced by the conformity of the artifact after 4500 years to the originally lofted lines.
The artifact southeast of Dogubayazit Turkey is not a "natural formation" nor is it a "monastery" of unusual shape. It is not a "yacht of medieval construction. It is the silted replacement of reeds and woods and the decomposed coating and fittings of a grounded raft built by a very advanced culture. The culture had a technology exceeded only in the last few centuries by our own. (Even this statement may be overly Arrogant! Your author is not at all sure how generally known is the planet period relationships. There is not a known reference to the pattern. Neither is there a reference in vibration theory to the beneficial effect of designing so that resonance is suppressed by employing dimensions ratioed to irrational numbers and to "least energetic frequencies".) Your author considers this in mechanical and structural design but the practice isn't generally discussed outside of pure physics and possibly, Electronics Engineering.
The Ark survived a tidal flood that devastated and destroyed nearly all other traces of that advanced technological culture. According to Plato, The flood damage was so great, it left us with the, perhaps misinformed notion that we are the first "advanced" culture on earth.
QUESTIONS
Would heat sensitive photography show silt patterns in the skeleton arrangement of a ship?

Do the common units of measure suggest a common technology and help explain the Ancient Britons' ability to quarry and move large stones? Does the presence of the large stones in the English henges imply the Britons' experienced and expected high velocity water from tidal floods, where no doubt the Atlantic Ocean was the source?

Were the henges built to resist these catastrophes? Does the distance between the Sumerian construction site of the Ark and its present location testify to the water velocities with which ancient peoples contested when they used such large stones? Can mountains have been built at the rate of a centimeter per century if they rose up to trap the Ark in a lake of seawater, drained several months after the flood? Does recent exploratory work concerning the age of the salt crust and silt layer in the bottom of the Black Sea verify the same flood that carried the Ark into Eastern Turkey?

How much evidence of catastrophe does Science need to seriously question uniformitarian theory? Isn't it time for a serious examination of the history of man that includes all of the evidence?

CERTAINTIES
The artifact is located 700 miles from the Persian Gulf and 2000 miles from the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean is the only source of water that could supply an "unearthly" tide sweeping the Ark to Dogubayazit. To raise the Himalayan range, the flood had to have been approximately 3,000 feet deep at Sumer. It rushed overland, with the land rising under it into Turkey. The cause was a gravity added to that of the Moon and the Sun. This subject is treated elsewhere and is the more significant story.

Regardless of the variety of beliefs about its cargo and the crew size, this is Nuh'un Gemisi. It is the raft of Utnapishtim. It is the Ark of Noah.

 

[shauk100]

How do you post photos on this forum?

 

[Deleted member 619]

[img][/img]

 

[WarK]

You are accusing me of making an argument from authority (using proper terminology in this discussion would go a long way in helping me take you seriously) while also relying on the Galileo Gambit. Please, if you have a problem with logical fallacies, do not rely on them yourself. However, we are arguing on an Ethernet forum, thus citing sources (which are written by authorities) appears to be the only way one is able to provide evidence. Please do inform us on a better way of providing evidence through the Ethernet. If you wish, you could always take me there and have me actually explain this to you in person (however, that would have to be on your dime).

This is not ethernet. Quite possibly most people connecting to the forums aren't even using ethernet hardware.

Ethernet has a meaning and it's not synonymous with the Internet nor World Wide Web.

[/rant]

 

[shauk100]

[img][/img]

Thanks

 

[tuxbox]

You are accusing me of making an argument from authority (using proper terminology in this discussion would go a long way in helping me take you seriously) while also relying on the Galileo Gambit. Please, if you have a problem with logical fallacies, do not rely on them yourself. However, we are arguing on an Ethernet forum, thus citing sources (which are written by authorities) appears to be the only way one is able to provide evidence. Please do inform us on a better way of providing evidence through the Ethernet. If you wish, you could always take me there and have me actually explain this to you in person (however, that would have to be on your dime).

This is not ethernet. Quite possibly most people connecting to the forums aren't even using ethernet hardware.

Ethernet has a meaning and it's not synonymous with the Internet nor World Wide Web.

[/rant]

I have a wired network consisting of two switches.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I have a hamster in a wheel and a complicated pulley system.

 

[tuxbox]

:lol:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I haven't weighed in on this in the fears that we might scare him off because an whole bunch of people was pouncing on him.
And yet I see that the thread is already doing it's death spiral towards certain doom.
A faith that was not unpredictable from the very beginning.
They all start proclaiming that they are reasonable, and that they would just change their minds if they were shown to be wrong. And they smugly thing to have a greater knowledge about things than everyone that came before them, and the the world would see their way if only they were as smart as they are. While at the same time claiming ridiculous things like the inerrancy of the bible, and divine inspiration for the writings, that even tough the hand was that of men, it was God himself that written it. A position that can only be held due to shortsightedness and abject ignorance of the subject matter.
But they don't know any better, they thing that their arguments are the next best thing since sliced bread, and that they will succeed to convince everyone else where others have failed, because their arguments are perfect while everyone else that came before are flawed.

Then when they come here they will fail, they always fail. As soon as we start to poke holes, they stop answering direct questions it is as if they couldn't see them, their minds just simple erased them from existence, because they can't wrap their heads around the fact that they were so convinced that they were right on something that was completely groundless and it is so easily knocked down.
And they will go round and round in circles insisting on the same debunked arguments, over and over again, and they can't let go. It's a pattern that I have seen so many times that it becomes almost completely predictable. You can swap the person and some of the wording, but the content of this thread is exactly the same as countless many others across this board.


And now, as many times before I will give "shauk100" my advice, which he will promptly ignore.
Claims of inerrancy are absurd. There is no such. It's a poisonous mindset that sets you for failure. You are wrong even before you say a single word, I don't need to hear your argument to know that it is bunk. Hearing it is just a mere formality that one might do out of entertainment, to see how many points of fail you manage to cram up into one single statement. And the sooner you give up on that idea the better it is going to be for you. Do not start by thinking that certain things can not be wrong, start instead by thinking that they can be wrong.
I just to put this to bed, despite your claims of inerrancy, not even in your world view, even if I just grant you straight out of the ball park that there can even be such a thing as a inerrant book. You yourself admit that the translations are not inerrant because they are not the original text, the originals were inerrant, the copies are not. Let me grant you for the sake of argument that the originals were inerrant as you say (how would anyone could even come up with that conclusion in the first place? I have no idea. It's completely absurd.). There is one minor problem tough, there are no original texts any more, its gone! Which would mean that in your own world view, there exists no text which is inerrant. In your own world view, trying to solve those contradictions in the bible (as you so proudly display as your master piece) amounts to nothing more than a mere exercise in futility. Because you don't know what the original text said, as far as you know, the copies you are working with could have introduce errors, trying to defend them is just pointless. There is just nothing there to be had.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ps. As far as I know. There is only 1 book which can be claimed to be inerrant and divinely inspired, a book that should be treated religiously and read in reverence of its holy author. A book that should be in every hotel room, the only book were people should be sworn on in court or get married by reading chapters of it. And that book is the foundations of uncompressible aerodynamics by professor Brederode.

 

[shauk100]

And now, as many times before I will give "shauk100" my advice, which he will promptly ignore. Claims of inerrancy are absurd. There is no such. It's a poisonous mindset that sets you for failure. You are wrong even before you say a single word, I don't need to hear your argument to know that it is bunk. Hearing it is just a mere formality that one might do out of entertainment, to see how many points of fail you manage to cram up into one single statement. And the sooner you give up on that idea the better it is going to be for you. Do not start by thinking that certain things can not be wrong, start instead by thinking that they can be wrong.
I just to put this to bed, despite your claims of inerrancy, not even in your world view, even if I just grant you straight out of the ball park that there can even be such a thing as a inerrant book. You yourself admit that the translations are not inerrant because they are not the original text, the originals were inerrant, the copies are not. Let me grant you for the sake of argument that the originals were inerrant as you say (how would anyone could even come up with that conclusion in the first place? I have no idea. It's completely absurd.). There is one minor problem tough, there are no original texts any more, its gone! Which would mean that in your own world view, there exists no text which is inerrant. In your own world view, trying to solve those contradictions in the bible (as you so proudly display as your master piece) amounts to nothing more than a mere exercise in futility. Because you don't know what the original text said, as far as you know, the copies you are working with could have introduce errors, trying to defend them is just pointless. There is just nothing there to be had.

The problems of your advice are several. First, I am not congratulating myself on arguments over everyone's head. In fact, my entrance says GOD (not me) is revealing in our day for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear (not everyone has or will). Second, we do have the original languages, the dead sea scrolls are even available, the texts receipts is easily available, and even if they were imperfect, there is definitely enough there to arrive at the truth if one is diligent. But you are making a claim people have not so prevalently (maybe in minor circles, but nothing like today) made in millennia. And that is that God does not exist, and/or the Bible is myth. So, where is your proof of that grandiose claim?