Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: allenroy@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: No Biblical Mt Ararat [was:Noahs Ark] Message-ID: Date: 22 May 91 05:09:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 44 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes: >Bear in mind that there is no Mt Ararat >mentioned anywhere in the Bible. >Now Genesis 8 has the Ark landing in the Mountain*S* of Ararat (modern >translations typically render this as something like the "Ararat >Range"[*]), but if people like Williams expect such extreme claims to be >taken seriously, the least that they can do is to get the minimal details >of geography correct. >Moreover, the mountain currently called Ararat has only been called that >for the last few centuries (in English only? Does anyone know the Turkish/ >Armenian names?). Michael, you are absolutly correct about the Bible refering to a region rather than a single mountain. The only reason that Noah's Ark research is concentrating on Agri Dag (turkish for 'painful mountain') is because of the various claimed sightings by various persons over the last two centuries. What Arkologists such as myself are attempting to do is either verify or invalidate these reports. Some of them have been proven false or fradulant. Some are still open for debate. Others really seem to be correct, but so far, unprovable. Williams' story is intriguing. I am trying to trace the origins of the newspaper article to see if it really did exist. There are several persons from across the US who remember reading similar articles at about the same time. This circumstancial evidence is not conclusive, but cannot be ignored. Not even in a court of law. If we can show that the article never existed, great. If we can find that someone invented the story, great. If we can't find a source for the story, fine. The point is, opinions are of little consequence compared to facts. Jesus believed in Creation and the Flood. I believe Him, so I belive that the Ark did exist. The Bible says nothing about what happend to the Ark after the Flood. If, and this is a big IF, it were located in such a place where it could have been preserved (like the deepfreeze of a permanent, stationary ice field), then the Ark may still exist today. I find this to be an intriguing mystery to be solved. C. Allen Roy > feel taking a flight to Denver with a navigator who spent his time > looking for Mt Rocky. ;) ]