In Search of Noah’s Ark

MSNBC ^ | July 21st, 2003 | Eve Conant

[LOL Clinton Was Impeached]

He found the Titanic. Now Robert Ballard hunts the quarry of a lifetime

July 21 issue — Ten thousand years ago, the Black Sea was a freshwater lake in the middle of a vast, low-lying basin. Its fertile valleys and lush pastures would have given Neolithic hunter-gatherers a perfect opportunity to make the leap to a more settled, agricultural society. But then disaster struck.

ABOUT 7,500 YEARS ago the ice age ended, the world’s climate warmed and the seas rose. The Aegean Sea breached a narrow strip of land, where the Strait of Bosporus is today, like a dam bursting. Seawater poured into the basin with the force of 200 Niagara Falls’, raising the water level six inches each day and sending the human settlers scurrying to the hills. The story of the Great Flood was told and retold, eventually in Genesis: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life... the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.”

Did Noah’s Flood really happen this way and in this place? Some people think it did. In August, underwater explorer Robert Ballard intends to put this theory to the test. To do it, the 60-year-old Connecticut-based geologist—better known for his elaborately publicized ship-hunting escapades, including the discovery of the Titanic in 1985—is going to have to push the state of deep-sea technology. He’s designed a remotely piloted submersible, Hercules, which he claims can excavate for signs of human civilization at depths of 300 meters with a precision approaching what archeologists can muster with human hands.

[kidd]

No - JWs do not believe that Christ was the Son of God. Mormons believe that the kind of life that you've chosen to live will determine whether you will be placed in one of four distinct afterlives: Celestial, Terrestial, Telestial, Outer Darkness. Neither would agree with that statement. They are not Christians.

The following is precisely what each Catholic believes:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Note the small 'c' in catholic - meaning "universal", not Rome.

Also note this: "He will come again to judge the living and the dead" Jesus will judge, not Rome.

[D Rider]

Your right on!

Many of the errors in Modern Christian Denominations, can be traced to the misunderstanding of the importance of the OT on Doctrine and Prophesy. Much of the NT revelation only becomes clear when viewed in light of the OT. Example: what is that scroll thing all about in the book of Revelation? See the book of Ruth... etc. ...etc ...etc, from front cover to back.

[Theo]

The Bible is an excellent and heartwarming source of morals and principles to live by, as well as cautionary tales. But it's not a history or scientific text, regardless of how hard some attempt to make it so

It's too late for you to judge Scripture. You, instead, are evaluated by it.

It's either true or baloney. It either is accurate or fable. It's not "nice" or "heartwarming."

"Principles to live by"? What does that mean? It's either God's Word or *not* God's Word. If it's *not* God's Word, then it's a pretty dangerous thing, and the Creator is pretty impotent not to be able to communicate clearly with His creatures....

Are you the kind of person who says that Jesus was a good moral teacher? Jesus, the One Who said He and the Father were One? Heartwarming?

Unbelievable....

[winker]

The book of JOB describes Leviathian as existant in the 6,000 years of Biblical History, it certainly qualifies as a dinosaur from the way it is described!

[BibChr]

You really shouldn't argue about JW's or Mormons, I do know whereof I speak. They both certainly would agree with the words you wrote. It is what they would MEAN by that agreement, what content they would import into (or from) the words, that is the problem.

As with Romanism.

You cite a creed with which all Christians would agree, and some non-Christians, in the same manner discussed above.

But you still didn't answer my questions.

Dan

[Long Cut]

"It's too late for you to judge Scripture. You, instead, are evaluated by it."

I can judge what I wish; I am a free man. As far as evaluations go, well, my son's smile and laugh as he looks at me is all I need in this life.

"It either is accurate or fable."

Well, we know it's not accurate. In addition to the story of Noah (Two members of a large mammalian species is insufficient to "seed" that species, by about 500-1000 individuals; among OTHER impossibilities), the story of Genesis is flatly contradicted by the geologic, paleonologic, bilogic, and cosmologic record. Thus, the only conclusion is that it is fable, that is, allegorical stories. This does NOT, however, diminish those tales' essential wisdom.

"It's not "nice" or "heartwarming."

Well, not ALL of the stories. Some are quite violent and dreary. The overall message is one of hope and warmth, though, for millions of people.

"Are you the kind of person who says that Jesus was a good moral teacher? Jesus, the One Who said He and the Father were One? Heartwarming?"

Are you the kind who says he was NOT? I thought you had read the Bible. Was his purpose NOT to bring love and hope to mankind? I must have missed him doing otherwise...

" If it's *not* God's Word, then it's a pretty dangerous thing, and the Creator is pretty impotent not to be able to communicate clearly with His creatures...."

Clearly is a matter of opinion, isn't it? At any rate, he has not "communicated" with any of us for at least 2,000 years, if we take as our guide the Bible. But tell me, why would it be so "dangerous" if it were NOT God's Word? It wouldn't make me suddenly wish to lead an evil life, the benefits of living a decent life are manifest regardless of what religion one subscribes to, if any. You'd still live your life the way you do now, I'm sure. What "danger" would there be, save to those who truly do not wish to lead good lives ANYWAY, and do so out of fear, or to those whose faith and morality are so weak that mere words on paper are all they rest on?

[kidd]

I answered your question perfectly. Don't try and tell me what I believe - I know what I believe. Your "lying eyes" won't let you believe anything that goes against your pre-set so-called knowledge about Catholics. Every Catholic that attends Mass recites the Apostle's Creed (or the similar Nicene Creed) AS A PROFESSION OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE. I know it by heart and I have examined every statement in it and I am 100% agreement with it. And no, there isn't a single non-Christian who would agree with the entire Apostle's Creed - if they did they would be Christians.

[BibChr]

I was afraid you couldn't handle a genuine dialogue. As a rule, RC's can't.

I usually don't do this, since our posts are all easily accessible, but here once again is the question you did not, in fact answer:

Now, honesty (or knowledge of your Rome's dogma?) test: what does the church of Rome ADD TO that statement as requirements for salvation ("...Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for my sins so that I may be saved")?

Dan

[al_c]

Lighten up, Dan. I was just curious.

[al_c]

Now, honesty (or knowledge of your Rome's dogma?) test: what does the church of Rome ADD TO that statement as requirements for salvation ("...Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for my sins so that I may be saved")?

That we should live by the laws set up by God himself and given to us through His Word ... the Bible. That seems to be something that many non-Catholics like to forget (OSAS).

[BibChr]

Commencing to "lighten up":

How's that?

Dan

[BibChr]

Hey, no fair! You told me to lighten, then went deep! So, so everyone's clear, you're saying that your position, as an RC< is this::

Eschatological (ultimate) salvation is a result of
Our faith, plus
Our obedience to God's laws

Right?

Dan

[kidd]

Now, honesty (or knowledge of your Rome's dogma?) test: what does the church of Rome ADD TO that statement as requirements for salvation ("...Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for my sins so that I may be saved")?

I answered it in length (which to everyone else is considered dialogue), but apparently you like "dialogue" in one word sentences:

Nothing.

At length:
RCs believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
RCs believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins
RCs believe that because Jesus Christ died for our sins that we can enter heaven if He judges that we can.

You are right though - this is not a dialogue. A dialogue is an exchange of opinions and ideas. I give my opinions and beliefs. You, like some self-appointed all-knowing professor, come back and tell me that my beliefs are wrong. You even have the nerve to "test" me. So the "dialogue" is only half-way, and in this case its coming from the RC end only.

Who are you to "test" me on Catholicism? Please provide your credentials professor.

[al_c]

That's more like it. ;o)

[aShepard]

"In other words, 6,000 species released 10-12K ago could split into 11,000 today.

Ya mean, kind'a like in evolution???

[al_c]

Hey, no fair! You told me to lighten, then went deep!

You asked (twice). ;o)
I know you didn't ask me, but I'm being a buttinski.

So, so everyone's clear, you're saying that your position, as an RC< is this::

Eschatological (ultimate) salvation is a result of
Our faith, plus
Our obedience to God's laws
Right?

Salvation is a result of Christ's sacrifice for us. That's the main thing. How do we respond to that? We praise Him and we follow His precepts. We can do nothing to earn salvation, but we risk losing it through our disobedience.

[BibChr]

Credentials: see above, at least twice so far. See my web page, read "Your Host." Do your own homework.

If that's your answer, you're either a liar or not a loyal RC and should leave the sect immediately.

This is neither rocket science nor arcane, mystic lore. The difference between RCism and Christianity is the word "alone." RCism affirms faith, grace, the Bible, in a formal way. Christianity (i.e. the Bible) says that the only way to salvation is by grace ALONE, through faith ALONE, on the basis of the work of Christ ALONE, as we learn from the Bible ALONE, so that all the glory goes to God ALONE.

You can't do dialogue, don't blame me. Honesty is essential.

Dan

[Oberon]

Not teying to offend anyone but the first testement is fiction. Find a grave from someone in the first testement.

All right:

This is the tomb of Ramses II, Pharaoh of Egypt during the time of Moses and the Exodus.

[BibChr]

...I'm being a buttinski.

Oh well, it's not like we're talking in a private booth in the corner of a dark restaurant somewhere.

Not meaning to be strident, but can you give me a yes or no on my question? If it's no, then I'll really be puzzled with your first post. I know the RC position quite well; as I just duh-ed to Kidd, it's not like it's in a footnote on a scroll in the basement of an ancient scriptorium in Cairo. But what continues to puzzle me is that (A) RC's are so reluctant to come out and say, "Yep, that's what I believe!" (as if uncomfortable with it), yet (B) won't even consider simply leaving the position that makes them so uncomfortable, and the sect that imposes it on them.

Dan

[al_c]

I believe I answered you question quite clearly and in a way that is in total agreement with the teachings of the RCC. We don't earn salvation. It can't be done. Do you disagree with my answer? Should we just ignore His precepts?