Mount Ararat is 17,000 ft high and it is where the Ark came to rest after the flood.
- Thread starter BandyOne
- Start date
I believe it moreso than I would if it was at a lower altitude. Why would he stick around until he ended up in mud only. How would anything survive there? What exactly is the point you were making BTW?
Upvote
0
This is the only verse I find Ararat mentioned in Genesis:
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
It doesn't say that the ark rested at the top of Ararat. The use of the plural "mountains" suggests that the ark landed in the vicinity of Ararat, not on the mountain itself.
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
It doesn't say that the ark rested at the top of Ararat. The use of the plural "mountains" suggests that the ark landed in the vicinity of Ararat, not on the mountain itself.
Upvote
0
I just thought it was a bit strange for it to go to ground on the top of a mountain, it's a long time to wait for the waters to
recede down to the plains, don't forget Noah is feeding every animal every day until they can find food to feed themselves.
but I suppose God had to step in at the end and provide food for everything and perhaps water because they would have
run out a long time before then. (I feel a fool writing this load of rubbish, so imagine how I would feel if I believed it)
recede down to the plains, don't forget Noah is feeding every animal every day until they can find food to feed themselves.
but I suppose God had to step in at the end and provide food for everything and perhaps water because they would have
run out a long time before then. (I feel a fool writing this load of rubbish, so imagine how I would feel if I believed it)
Upvote
0
That is correct that it might not mean ON Mt Ararat. Perhaps it is actually in Iran as this expedition shows
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=813
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=813
Upvote
0
Read the bible it has evidence by the bucket load, well not exactly evidence, but
bucket loads of words, and I am sure words count as evidence, up until now they
have, the preachers swear by them so that must be evidence, they seem to think
so anyway, they wouldn't be fooling us would they? no, they are honest and upright
people who have nothing to gain by lying to us, plus the fact if they do lie they will
not go to heaven, but if they are lying there is no heaven, so I wont be going to
heaven either, they can't be lying I would know, I'm not stupid, am I?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
supersport
Well-Known Member
what makes you so sure this mountain was this high when the flood happened?
edit: oops this reply was meant for the OP
Upvote
0
You have changed the rules again,
I was under the impression the world was different BEFORE the flood,
and the world is as it is since the flood, so the mountain is as high now AFTER the flood.
Please make up your mind how you want it to be, if you keep changing the rules how can
we argue with you?
Write things down so you wont forget how it's supposed to be, otherwise we will all get confused,
if you don't, our arguments will become meaningless and have little to do with reality, then the
next thing we know we will be talking rubbish about things that might not have happened at all,
and we would not want that, would we?
So please sort yourself out and get things firmly fixed in your head before you make a statement,
that way we will all know what rubbish we are talking about.
Upvote
0
Because in real life, mountains don't grow as fast as trees. Well, I guess it would need to grow faster considering that some trees are older than the Flood itself and they are still just a few hundred feet tall.
PS: Why is the oldest living tree nearly 400 years older than the Flood? Wasn't God suppost to kill those things, right?
Upvote
0
supersport
Well-Known Member
this is my first comment on this thread...how could I change the rules? I don't know if mountains were as high back then or not...I was simply asking a question.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Well, are you suggesting the mountain was lower at the time of the Flood or not?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
supersport
Well-Known Member
what part of the following statement do you not understand?:
I don't know if mountains were as high back then or not
Upvote
0
Well is it your uneducated opinion that mountains can grow thousands of feet in one year while at the same time the water covering them is cutting chanells thousands of feet deep?
Upvote
0
The mountains likely did melt a little bit during the rain. 40 days and nights of hydrolic minning has got to make even the largest mountains sweat a little bit.
Upvote
0
supersport
Well-Known Member
I do not believe mountains could formed being pushed up one millimeter at a time over thouands or millions of years....such a thing looks like it was probably a result of a sudden crash of land masses.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Fact, the US moves away from Europe by 1/4 of an inch every year.
So in 100 million years (not long in geological terms) the US will be nearly 400 miles further away.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
