Bible-Based All-Wood Ark Takes Shape in Kentucky Field

[Green Sun]

I'm a bible believing Christian. I get to add stuff to fill in the blanks.

You heard it here folks, we can just add whatever we want now!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And Noah used the 90 steel crossbraces and the many mechanical bilge pumps that kept the Wyoming afloat, as well?

No need. The ark wasn't built like the Wyoming. Maybe if they had sealed the Wyoming with pitch inside and out it might not have sunk.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's what you have to do in order for the story to make any sort of sense, and even then there's no guarantee that it will.

One man's sense is another man's nonsense.

Where I live highly educated, well-paid city employees build flower gardens in the middle of residential intersections. Which makes perfect sense to them, but not to me, or those who drive those streets, or the other city employees that must plow the snow from those streets.

I could fill a book with nonsensical things that I observe, things that make perfect sense others.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You heard it here folks, we can just add whatever we want now!

It's called expository study.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm a bible believing Christian. I get to add stuff to fill in the blanks.

So just ignore Proverbs then ?
[VERSE=proverbs 30:5-6,ASV][VERSENUM]5[/VERSENUM] Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him.

[VERSENUM]6[/VERSENUM] Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.[/VERSE]

 

[cow451]

I spent the first 19 years of my life in a three story building, and it didn't collapse. Many of my friends also lived in three story buildings, and they lived to tell the tale.

How did you ever survive that forty days and nights of rain?

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm a bible believing Christian. I get to add stuff to fill in the blanks.

Oh really?

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/4-2.htm

http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-18.htm

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh really?

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/4-2.htm

http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-18.htm

Expository study is another term for 'filling in the blanks'. It has been done for centuries by scholars and commentators, such as Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke. I am in very good company.

Of course you don't add to the commandments and statutes or the prophecy of Revelation , but you do study (not just read/rehearse) to "shew yourself approved, rightly dividing (discerning, understanding) the word of truth".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How did you ever survive that forty days and nights of rain?

In the loins of Shem of course (ThankyouShemthankyouthankyou ).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[Catherineanne]

Of course you don't add to the commandments and statutes or the prophecy of Revelation , but you do study (not just read/rehearse) to "shew yourself approved, rightly dividing (discerning, understanding) the word of truth".

That is not what you are doing. You are adding to Scripture.

On whose authority do you 'get to add stuff to fill in the blanks'?

 

[Belk]

The ark was a three story building. It didn't collapse.

Three story building do not float.

 

[Glass*Soul]

And yet she sailed and lugged cargo for 15 years. The ark only needed to float for one year. Using the example of the Wyoming to debunk the ark is nonsense.

Not nonsense. The Wyoming had an internal steel bracing, and still modern steam pumps were required to keep her relatively dry as normal pitch and yaw twisted her out of shape and caused openings to form between her planks. The ark would have been longer and would have had no steel bracing or modern steam pumps. What's more, it would have faced conditions far worse than that which eventually sank the Wyoming. While the Wyoming was in port at regular intervals where maintenance was presumably performed, and wisely postponed trips when a nor'easter was in the works, the ark would have had no port. Nowhere to go in conditions of unimaginable violence as water rose above Mt. Everest in a mere 40 days (not that this is possible, but so the story goes).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is not what you are doing. You are adding to Scripture.

On whose authority do you 'get to add stuff to fill in the blanks'?

I'm doing this for myself, not anyone else. Check your bible. Do you see anything that I've added?

Haven't you ever heard a two-hour sermon explaining two or three verses of scripture?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not nonsense. The Wyoming had an internal steel bracing, and still modern steam pumps were required to keep her relatively dry as normal pitch and yaw twisted her out of shape and caused openings to form between her planks. The ark would have been longer and would have had no steel bracing or modern steam pumps. What's more, it would have faced conditions far worse than that which eventually sank the Wyoming. While the Wyoming was in port at regular intervals where maintenance was presumably performed, and wisely postponed trips when a nor'easter was in the works, the ark would have had no port. Nowhere to go in conditions of unimaginable violence as water rose above Mt. Everest in a mere 40 days (not that this is possible, but so the story goes).

The ark was designed to survive the flood, and according to the story, it did.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The ark was designed to survive the flood, and according to the story, it did.

The design that the Bible describes is not one that would survive the flood as described. That technology has been shown to fail.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

The design that the Bible describes is not one that would survive the flood as described. That technology has been shown to fail.

The bible is pretty thin on design details for the ark. Much design detail was left up to Noah in his day, and me in my day. Who can prove me wrong?

The only way to disprove the design would be to build an ark and have a global flood. If the ark falls apart and sinks, you are right.

 

[Glass*Soul]

.


The only way to disprove the design would be to build an ark and have a global flood. If the ark sinks, you are right.

I'm saying just launch the thing in normal seas. We can start with that.

Building an ark in a field in Kentucky is a nonsensical exercise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm saying just launch the thing in normal seas. We can start with that.

Building an ark in a field in Kentucky is a nonsensical exercise.

Noah didn't "launch" the ark, the flood waters floated it off the ground where it was built. The Kentucky ark is a tourist attraction, not a model of the true ark.

 

[Belk]

.


The bible is pretty thin on design details for the ark. Much design detail was left up to Noah in his day, and me in my day. Who can prove me wrong?

The only way to disprove the design would be to build an ark and have a global flood. If the ark falls apart and sinks, you are right.

The expert wooden ship builders who say it is not possible.