Believers In The Lost Ark (Noah's)

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 8-9-2003 | Karen Armstrong

[blam]

"Ballard's critics are sceptical: they argue that the infiltration of the Black Sea was a gradual process that occurred much earlier and over a long period of time. "

This idea has been pretty well de-bunked in Ryan & Pittman's book, Noah's Flood
If it had been a slow process, there would be numerous 'shore lines' as the water slowly rose. Instead, there is only one about 500 feet underwater.

[blam]

Ping.

[Migraine]

So. That settles it then. Karen Armstrong has spoken, pontifically. All the thoughts worth thinking on this matter have now been assembled and delineated. That is good to know.

[lizma]

It was never possible to interpret a myth in terms of objective reason.

Sister Benidict that taught me 9th grade biology said it is not a myth but it might be a parable, just as how Christ taught.

[blam]

Ballard And The Black Sea (In Search Of Noah's Flood)

[WorkingClassFilth]

PING!

[rdb3]

Wasn't Noah's Ark found on Mount Ararat?

[Genesis defender]

They accuse Ballard of using Noah to sex up his material....

Noah = sexy? Uhhh...right.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Wasn't Noah's Ark found on Mount Ararat?

I visited Ararat. The only thing found near the summit was a sliver of wood. It was inscribed in an an ancient language. It was later translated to read..42...it was signed...Slartibartfast.

[LiteKeeper]

This is the same hermeneutic (higher criticism in a post modern context) that the Episcopal bishops used to justify their election of an apostate (dare I say non-true believer) to the office of chief pastor of the Episcopalian flock in New Hampshire.

In other words, without a shred of proof or any evidence, this writer draws on the pseudo-scholarship of the Graf-Welhausen school of biblical interpretation, and decides for us that there is no truth in the historical narratives of the Old Testament. Like the Episcopalians, she looks for a story behind (or above) the story.

What makes her so smart? She goes so far as attributing motive to the writers, motive which is pure speculation.

I don't buy it. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

[Just another Joe]

Noah = sexy? Uhhh...right.

Well, after all, Noah, his wife, and his sons and daughters, and their wives and husbands did repopulate the earth.

[jlogajan]

Wasn't Noah's Ark found on Mount Ararat?

A piece of wood was found, but was dated to mid-AD. Long after the Biblical stories went to press.

[jlogajan]

So. That settles it then. Karen Armstrong has spoken, pontifically. All the thoughts worth thinking on this matter have now been assembled and delineated. That is good to know.

Well, in one little article she assembles more historical facts than a gaggle of fundies could scrape together in 20 centuries.

[TruthConquers]

What I find most interesting is that in New Testament Greek, in John1:1, Christ is called the "Logos", the greek word for "word".
I wonder how this psuedo-academic gets around reason being equal with Christ?
I'm sure it must be a twisted path.

"In the beginning was the Logos,
and the Logos was with God,
and God was the Logos." John 1:1

[gusopol3]

she assembles more historical facts

Read it twice and didn't come across a single "historic fact" and neither can you.

[Lessismore]

See the following paragraph from

http://engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/logos.html

"Perhaps the most extensive accounting of The Logos was by Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew who lived around the time of Christ. Philo wrote allegories of Old Testament books authored by Moses, interpreting them in the light of Greek philosophy. He used the term, logos,refer more than 1300 times in his writings, in many varied ways. Of particular note are his references to The Logos as the Divine Reason, by participation in which humans are rational; the model of the universe; the superintendent or governor of the universe; and the first-born son of God. Although there is no direct evidence that John ever even read Philo, it seems clear that the concepts he articulated were firmly in the mind of the evangelist when he wrote his gospel."

[Quix]

THANKS.

I don't think this is a good area for such a search at all.

There's far, far too much evidence it's on Ararat where The Bible says it came to rest.

[rdb3]

Long after the Biblical stories went to press.

These "stories" were written in two languages well before there was such a thing as a printing press. I already know that you are extremely hostile to my faith, but still. . .

[Migraine]

Well, in one little article she assembles more historical facts than a gaggle of fundies could scrape together in 20 centuries Needless to say, Ballard does not subscribe to these ideas.
Why "needless to say"? I think it needed saying. Otherwise, she must be implying that, since Ballard is a scientist, and has been on National Geographic Explorer, he can't possibly be a believer. What drivel! The search for Noah's flood is as irrelevant as an attempt to find the "real" Middlemarch or Cranford. Like George Eliot and Elizabeth Gaskell, the authors of Genesis are not writing history, but are engaged in an imaginative investigation of the human predicament.
This is not historical fact -- this is an editorial favoring humanism over Jewish and Chrisian scriptures. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then I don't even care about it. What would be the point of even analyzing it every week in a major newspaper? But, if it IS the Word of God, then it is far more than an "imaginative investigation into the human predicament". What a condescending, patronizing comment. mythos and logos each had its own sphere of competence. If you confused them, you had bad science - like that of the creationists
Like evolutionists, creationists are trying to have GOOD science. The fact that there are flaws in each ought not to outright denigrate either. For instance -- creationists have a scientific problem in that they adduce the supernatural. "God forbid"! say the evolutionists; but they have a scientific problem with the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Fact is, more geologists are coming around to the cataclysmic model of earth's major sedimentary formations that creationists have been asserting all along. Genesis, however, exonerates God and put the blame squarely on human wickedness.
Well, it is good to know that God has been exonerated by someone. Good grief! I cannot even fathom the stupidity of that comment. If God is God (and He is), it is not possible to exonerate Him. If He were the defendant, then He is also the Judge, the Jury, the Prosecution and the defense. Where does that leave the writer.

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)