Posted on 11/16/2011 7:49:05 AM PST by fishtank
From the conclusion:
"Conclusion
If the wooden remains of the Ark were to be found on Mt. Ararat, then samples of that wood would be expected to yield C-14 dates of between 20,000 years and 50,000 years, consistent with the C-14 dates of pre-Flood wood found fossilized in the geologic record of the Flood. Even though the true age of such fossilized pre-Flood wood should be only 4,500 years or so old, around the date for the biblical Flood, these grossly inflated C-14 dates obtained in conventional radiocarbon dating laboratories are due to those laboratories ignoring the very much less C-14 in the pre-Flood world compared to today’s world. But in strong contrast, the wood samples that have been claimed by a Chinese-Turkish team to have supposedly come from their discovery of the wooden remains of the Ark on Ararat have yielded C-14 dates from analyses in conventional radiocarbon laboratories ranging from recent (modern) to 6,891±4,647 years. These results are grossly short of what the C-14 dates should be for pre-Flood wood. Therefore, if we logically follow the soundest scientific inference, it must be concluded that these wood samples cannot have come from the pre-Flood wood used to build the Ark. Given the present C-14 evidence, despite the tantalizing wooden remains the Chinese-Turkish team claims to have discovered on Mt. Ararat, such artifacts CANNOT have come from the Ark. So whatever they have found, they are NOT the remains of the Ark."
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
> and wasn’t meant to be taken literal.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers?
It’s not meant to be taken literally. Obviously it refers to any makers of dairy products.
-Life of Brian
Maybe Noah borrowed some wood from an old friend...
“That, or Genesis may simply be a summary of real history and wasn’t meant to be taken literal.”
Jesus took it literally.
Should parts of the Ark be discovered and verified, there are those both in this country and oversea who would be extremely hostile to such revelations, for the Bible would be proven to be history.
Jesus affirmed the truth in Genesis, I know.
Can you show me that he affirmed the exact dating of Genesis, that exactly, how ever many years prior to His existence on earth, Noah sailed in the Ark?
How long ago did the mountain become a mountain? On site realities are smeared out to fit global assumptions of mountian building. The top of that mountain may have not been above a tree line when the wood was harvested and something crafted from it. The structure would be more plausible as a fortress for osme as yet unknown group. And hauling wood up a mountain is no more difficult (probably less technologically difficult) than transporting 200 ton blocks to Giza.
The only thing cooler than the Shroud of Turin is Noah’s Ark.
Those look like relatively small blocks of wood to me.
As I understand it, the original Ark had a Seraphim Big Block (name later changed to Chevy) and only later models had small blocks.
So this can’t be the original ark.
Just how do they come up with the Earth being only 6,000 years anyway? I mean, we have evidence of civilizations 40-60,000 years ago.
Either we are misreading the Biblical story or that we are misreading the historical evidence.
I personally don’t think that it’s an attack on Scripture to affirm the Genesis events, but not necessarily the assumed dates of those events.
That, or Genesis may simply be a summary of real history and wasn’t meant to be taken literal.
_______________________________
Uh Oh, Here we go...
Many Biblical scholars think that, for example, Adam may have begetted Seth, but those names are simply the prominent names of that genetic pathway.
There could be people in between Adam and Seth, but there is little value in listing the ten people between Adam and Seth, because they contributed nothing to the history of man.
Can you show us where the Bible is in error?
Things are not as they appear to be in this world
esp. as we approach the last days.
See my links page for some young earth science stuff.
The idea of a 6,000 year-old planet is a construct of men. God has nothing to do with the errors of man, which are profligate and ongoing.
I’m not saying the Bible is in error, not one word.
However, our understanding of the Bible may not be completely correct, is all.
Remember Jesus did say not one jot or tittle would be removed from the Holy Words...
Too afraid to click on it...
Hebrew and Greek scholars do attest that the current biblical translations are over 99.9% accurate. Very little has been lost in translation and nowadays even more light is being shed on the exact meanings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.