[Ted Logan]

I say me and Bill should just go ask Joan where she and Noah left it.

[Ted Logan]

By the way, I seriously doubt we'll ever find the Ark. One reason is because religious relics are so incredibly dangerous to followers of Christ. Just consider what happened to the bronze snake that Moses made. Object lesson. This is also why I doubt we'll ever be able to identify beyond doubt the tomb of Jesus.

Also, the article I read said that it was unclear whether the structure was a boat or a building.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

By the way, I seriously doubt we'll ever find the Ark. One reason is because religious relics are so incredibly dangerous to followers of Christ. Just consider what happened to the bronze snake that Moses made. Object lesson. This is also why I doubt we'll ever be able to identify beyond doubt the tomb of Jesus.

Also, the article I read said that it was unclear whether the structure was a boat or a building.

I like how ICR deals with the ARK. They have gone on numerous trips to the mountains of Ararat and observed some very interesting objects. But because they could not get to them, or examine and study them- they just simply left them as curious items that need further research befre anything can really be said about them.

[mattbrowne]

The story of Noah's Ark is a wonderful myth, but not a historical event. It doesn't make sense to search for its wood or the remains of a million dead animals the ark had carried.

I'd like to share a few quotes from Michael Shermer and Karen Armstrong who know a lot more about the nature of myths than I do:

"Myths are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time and life—birth, death, marriage, the transitions from childhood to adulthood to old age. They meet a need in the psychological or spiritual nature of humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into a science, or a science into a myth, is an insult to myths, an insult to religion, and an insult to science."

“We tend to assume that the people of the past were (more or less) like us, but in fact their spiritual lives were rather different. In particular, they evolved two ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence. Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal. It was also rooted in what we would call the unconscious mind. The various mythological stories, which were not intended to be taken literally, were an ancient form of psychology. When people told stories about heroes who descended into the underworld, struggled through labyrinths, or fought with monsters, they were bringing to light the obscure regions of the subconscious realm, which is not accessible to purely rational investigation, but which has a profound effect upon our experience and behavior."

“Logos had its limitations. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy. Logos could not answer questions about the ultimate value of human life. A scientist could make things work more efficiently and discover wonderful new facts about the physical universe, but he could not explain the meaning of life. That was the preserve of myth and cult.”

This is why Noah's Ark is part of the Old Testament.

[JerryLove]

Actually: I suspect there was a real flood event (the flooding of the Black sea around 3,000 BCE) that was incorporated into legend (the flood of Gilgamesh) by refugees (Sumerians), and later adapted into Hebrew mythology as the flood of Noah.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by mattbrowne

The story of Noah's Ark is a wonderful myth, but not a historical event. It doesn't make sense to search for its wood or the remains of a million dead animals the ark had carried.

I'd like to share a few quotes from Michael Shermer and Karen Armstrong who know a lot more about the nature of myths than I do:

"Myths are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time and life—birth, death, marriage, the transitions from childhood to adulthood to old age. They meet a need in the psychological or spiritual nature of humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into a science, or a science into a myth, is an insult to myths, an insult to religion, and an insult to science."

“We tend to assume that the people of the past were (more or less) like us, but in fact their spiritual lives were rather different. In particular, they evolved two ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence. Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal. It was also rooted in what we would call the unconscious mind. The various mythological stories, which were not intended to be taken literally, were an ancient form of psychology. When people told stories about heroes who descended into the underworld, struggled through labyrinths, or fought with monsters, they were bringing to light the obscure regions of the subconscious realm, which is not accessible to purely rational investigation, but which has a profound effect upon our experience and behavior."

“Logos had its limitations. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy. Logos could not answer questions about the ultimate value of human life. A scientist could make things work more efficiently and discover wonderful new facts about the physical universe, but he could not explain the meaning of life. That was the preserve of myth and cult.”

This is why Noah's Ark is part of the Old Testament.

Well without sounding rude- but how do these "scholars" know their information on how to interpret teh mind set of people millenia ago is right?

Teh account of Noah goes into great detail of fmany things that would be foolish if it was just a fable. Also Jesus referred to Noah as actually having happened, I think that should settle the matter well.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well without sounding rude- but how do these "scholars" know their information on how to interpret teh mind set of people millenia ago is right?

I suppose the same way someone determines what lawmakers were thinking two centuries ago.

Teh account of Noah goes into great detail of fmany things that would be foolish if it was just a fable.

Proving that the flood of Gilgamesh is also not a fable, even though it's incompatable (different gods) with Noah's flood.

I suppose such methods of "proving" a text are rather double-edged.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

By the way, I seriously doubt we'll ever find the Ark. One reason is because religious relics are so incredibly dangerous to followers of Christ.

If we found it should we go all iconoclast on it?

[adamwagg]

Sorry guys this isn't Apologetics revisited (or the Cheap Post Forum).