Posted on 12/07/2010 7:57:43 PM PST by Walt Griffith
lower oxygen after the Flood:
http://www.varchive.org/itb/hydrox.htm
As far as larger brains — why not? They’re a gift so we can think for ourselves, not die like flies on the altar of Mecca.
I’m going with Plutarch and the Roman historians who say a couple of their emperors visited the tomb in Alexandria.
The article pretty well demolishes the Souvaltzis claims which made no sense anyway as the Macedonian generals obviously had no feelng of obligation to Alexander about what to do with his remains..
My guess is that they were on the way to the family tomb in Macedonia when diverted by Ptolomy to Egypt for political purposes: to shore up his claim to Egypt by associating himself with Alexander the God.
Plutarch is often grinding his own axes; one of those “elusive” articles notes that Big A had three different tombs, the final one of which was in Alexandria. Sounds like an ancient precursor to the remains trade, eh?
That’s not how the Bible describes it looking.
It’s covered in pitch inside and out and there’s only one entrance. All the rest is imposed design changes by men.
They flubbed the design totally.
If it wasn’t on Coast to Coast it never happened.
We live in a world of lost knowledge.
Thanks, I'm glad you like it.
Are you aware of the “canopied earth”? The earths atmosphere was filled with water creating a barrier of sorts. I have heard about it and was wondering how the preflood people would be able to see the stars.
Yes I've heard about that theory but I never thought about the issue of seeing stars. Good question......that makes the “canopied earth” theory harder to believe.
lol.
But only the fruitcake from Athens says his tomb was in Siwa.
I don’t see where Plutarach would have any axes to grind in reporting that the tomb was in Egypt and moved to various locations. That is exactly the type of anecdotal evidence that is found in all his ‘lives’ . It’s unlikely that he’d lie about something that should have been well known to his audience and would have been pointless to lie about.
So I’m going with Alexander’s tomb in Egypt and probably in Alexandria until looted/destoyed.
I agree that the tomb was in Alexandria. But the site may have been in the part of the town that slid into the Med during that long-ago earthquake.
“That’s not how the Bible describes it looking. It’s covered in pitch inside and out and there’s only one entrance. All the rest is imposed design changes by men “
There is only one door in that replica. And the replica is floating which indicates that the planks have been pitched. Pitch is a term that covers a range of resinous waterproofing compounds, plant based gum compounds being among the most ancient. Pine based pitch has a glossy look similar to varnish. Unless you have inside knowledge that Noah used the more modern invention of bitumen pitch, which is black, then that replica looks just fine.
There’s nothing modern about bitumen and here’s my “inside” information:
“The Judaicum Bitumen is a famous deposit of native asphalt seeping through diapirs at the bottom of the Dead Sea, which comes occasionally to the surface through seismic activity in blocks of up to 100 tons in weight which are more than 99.99% pure. It was the object of the first known battle for a hydrocarbon deposit, between the Seleucids and the Nabateans in 312 B.C.[6]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen#History
In other words you can’t produce any evidence from the Genesis text that the ‘kopher’ mentioned has to be bitumen pitch and black, rather than conifer pitch and clear.
My point is simply that your pretense to know that the ark can’t look like the dutchman’s replica is just that, pretense, based on no real knowledge. Maybe if you look hard enough you can find a second door on that replica to save your sorry record.
Maybe it was pitched, inconveniently with conifer sap, as opposed to the convenient and abundant bitumen, but that distinction takes thinking and isn't clear from the archaic Hebrew used. If the wood was Cypress a powerful argument could be made that it was Cypress tar.
What do we know from the Bible:
Moses was to "pitch" the ark inside and out:
http://biblos.com/genesis/6-14.htm
The Hebrew, transliterated "kaphar" could mean:
appease, make an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon,
A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel -- appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation).
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/3722.htm
I'm just guessing here, but the first definition to cover (specifically with bitumen) is the one I'm going with.
But wait, there's more!
We don't know what Gopher wood is exactly. It's most commonly thought to be Cypress as that tree was used anciently in ship building, not liable to rot, nor to be injured by worms and was plentiful.
That said, the Targums render it cedar, some think it pine, so whatever he built it from it can't be known to be correct.
But he's gotten the shape all wrong. Make thee an ark - תבת tebath, a word which is used only to express this vessel, and that in which Moses was preserved. So it's most like a chest or covered basket with a lid only larger.
It is definitely not a ship because the Hebrew would call it that. It also is not floating, but sits on a barge.
We have no evidence that there was an exterior deck. There were no windows and it was lighted by miraculous means on the interior.
The Dutchman and all the other attempts I've ever seen to replicate it diverge from the scriptures by trying to make it as modern a boat, only concentrating on the dimensions and not the physical description.
In short, it doesn't look like what you, the Dutchman or any other builder to date thinks it does. It's more like a sealed box.
Are they going to put two of every wild animal and seven of every domesticated animal in the Ark that they’re building? Mammals, reptiles, bugs, birds, fish and all?
Interesting comment. Same comment you’ve made many times. We get it. Everyone knows what you are. tick tock
Really? Prove it.
Yes, I don’t suffer fools gladly and that can come across as testiness. Good to see you moving from your prior assurance that you knew what the pitch had to be to conceding that there isn’t a way for you to know. Soon you may realize that “It is definitely not a ship because the Hebrew would call it that” is just you again stating facts that aren’t in evidence.
Gee, could this be because they all experienced very bad floods at some point in time? Not necessarily one that covered the Earth, however
Maybe because they all have a common ancestor (Noah) and a rich oral tradition.
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.