Jerusalem Post: Archaeologists find clues to Noah's ark

[Jwanon]

https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-770948

[Dages]

Interesting, even if I doubt we will find wood from it thousands of years later. I assume Noah and his family reuse this good wood for themselves 

[Dustparticle]

4 hours ago, Dages said:

Interesting, even if I doubt we will find wood from it thousands of years later. I assume Noah and his family reuse this good wood for themselves 

Personally I believe most still in tact underneath snow and ice and I’m glad because fools will claim it for profit and having name for themselves too. 

[Rodejong]

4 minutes ago, Dustparticle said:

Personally I believe most still in tact underneath snow and ice and I’m glad because fools will claim it for profit and having name for themselves too. 

 

Personally I don't believe we ever will find it, as it would become a shrine for people, and I don't think Jehovah wants that.

Jehovah wants us to believe in what is not seen, as seeing is not believing, contrary the popular phrase.

 

I agree that under Ice, it might be preserved, so practically it is possible, but I don't believe that Jehovah kept it and made it disappear, or let Moses build houses from it for himself and his children and their children. 

[Godskingdomrules]

I don't personally believe it's on top of Mt Ararat as the Genesis 8:4 says on the Mountains of Ararat, I don't think Jehovah would make the Ark land on top of the over 5000m Mountain as Noah's and animals would have to mountaineer there way down. 

The place in the article where they found the ark is more credible, I would imagine they would of used the timber materials from the ark after the flood to build houses but I'm only speculating.

[Desert Dan]

21 hours ago, Rodejong said:

 

Personally I don't believe we ever will find it, as it would become a shrine for people, and I don't think Jehovah wants that.

 

Many people worship plenty of other things other than God, so in the unlikely event they ever found remnants of the Ark, I would be less worried about another shrine in the world and people worshiping it.

 

It is my opinion that any archeological finds, including anything related to Bible events whether Flood or Red Sea related, etc, is good to help support bible accounts.  The more findings the better.  We know the bible doesn't lie about things, so as students, we have nothing to worry about regarding ancient finds.

 

[Rodejong]

21 hours ago, Godskingdomrules said:

I don't personally believe it's on top of Mt Ararat as the Genesis 8:4 says on the Mountains of Ararat, I don't think Jehovah would make the Ark land on top of the over 5000m Mountain as Noah's and animals would have to mountaineer there way down. 

The place in the article where they found the ark is more credible, I would imagine they would of used the timber materials from the ark after the flood to build houses but I'm only speculating.

 

The region has had a lot of seismic activities as the plates are crushing together in that region, pressing the ground upwards, which makes the mountains higher and higer through 1000's of years. 

 

We know several sites from the bible. Babylon's ruins, Jerusalem's Temple, etc, as that is what is written in the bible and also confirmed by archaeology.

 

But other sites were never specified, or lost their place due to the earth's changes, like the Garden of Eden i.e. (which was likely destroyed by the flood as well) which we only know of, that it was between the Euphrates and Tigris. Likewise we only know that it was in the Ararat region, but not specific. We know of some towns in the bible, but they have changed through these last thousands years. We see ruins, but other sites have been excavated and rebuild.

 

It would be exciting to find things like the ark, as it would silence any doubters, but faith does not depend on seeing, but the history from the bible, Jesus himself saying it, and the archaeology proves it as they have found several stories around the world explaining the flood drawn up to even thousands of years old.

 

Just read this article:

• w09 7/1 pp. 13-14
• Have They Found Noah’s Ark?

[Godskingdomrules]

3 hours ago, Rodejong said:

The region has had a lot of seismic activities as the plates are crushing together in that region, pressing the ground upwards, which makes the mountains higher and higer through 1000's of years. 

 

We know several sites from the bible. Babylon's ruins, Jerusalem's Temple, etc, as that is what is written in the bible and also confirmed by archaeology.

 

But other sites were never specified, or lost their place due to the earth's changes, like the Garden of Eden i.e. (which was likely destroyed by the flood as well) which we only know of, that it was between the Euphrates and Tigris. Likewise we only know that it was in the Ararat region, but not specific. We know of some towns in the bible, but they have changed through these last thousands years. We see ruins, but other sites have been excavated and rebuild.

 

It would be exciting to find things like the ark, as it would silence any doubters, but faith does not depend on seeing, but the history from the bible, Jesus himself saying it, and the archaeology proves it as they have found several stories around the world explaining the flood drawn up to even thousands of years old.

 

Just read this article:

• w09 7/1 pp. 13-14
• Have They Found Noah’s Ark?

Thanks for that i was looking for that article, I thought it was an Awake article which is why i couldn't find it. Thanks 

[Pabo]

[Brother_Bliss]

I believe that according to Josephus, it was subsequently dismantled and the wood was used for later building projects.

[Godskingdomrules]

5 hours ago, Brother_Bliss said:

I believe that according to Josephus, it was subsequently dismantled and the wood was used for later building projects.

Yes that is totally believable. With all trees and vegetation destroyed After the flood the only source of building materials would be the ark.

[WestBro]

5 hours ago, Brother_Bliss said:

I believe that according to Josephus, it was subsequently dismantled and the wood was used for later building projects.

 

And it was quality wood, coated in bitumen, so it makes sense that they reused it.

 

A parallel point: over time, nations around that region had some destruction syndrome, going into wars and burning down cities. Why would they leave a wooden structure intact? If it still existed hundreds of years later, wouldn't anyone think of taking advantage of it?

 

 

[Old]

5 hours ago, WestBro said:

 

And it was quality wood, coated in bitumen, so it makes sense that they reused it.

 

A parallel point: over time, nations around that region had some destruction syndrome, going into wars and burning down cities. Why would they leave a wooden structure intact? If it still existed hundreds of years later, wouldn't anyone think of taking advantage of it?

 

 

As a retired carpenter there are few materials more repugnant to my handling than bitumen (tar) coated wood. I at least have the advantage of having kerosene to clean my hands and tools.

The interior structure might well have been reusable but People did not live in wood structures however a certain amount of wood would likely be incorporated in roofs. I think I would have used local wood sources rather than go up the mountain to harvest wood.