I have found a website that has good evidence for the history of many bible stories that many says don't exist, for example, Noah's ark, Sodom and Gommorrah, the Red Sea Crossing, etc.... Click on the link below:

Click here

Their existance isn't what is questioned (usually). It is their connection to God that people raise an eyebrow at.

Well, if they found sulfer balls in the areas where sodom and Gomorrah were supposed to be, then it looks like God rained brimestone from the sky as it's stated from the bible. Where did they come from????? What about the chariots in the sea? Obviously the water rose up on Moses' command and let the Jews cross then fell in on the Egyptians. If there was an ark, then obviously there was a global flood. Some say that it wasn't a global flood, but how would Noah know there was a flood in enough time to build that huge ark? The bible said it took him some 150 years to build it. Wouldn't he have just move further up in the mountains if it was a local flood???

The way I see it saucy, God has some explaining to do to ME about the state of humanity. If there is a God, then certainly he(she it whatever) is a reasonable being. What with infinite knowledge and all, so why should I worry about making him(her it again whatever) happy? Im more concerned on people who are suffering in this world, than makeing a all powerful being happy.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't read the link. For starters, proof that these events happened, as I said, would not be proof that God was responsible for them (God is not the first source that I would consider when analyzing sulfur balls). Second, and perhaps, more importantly, you have a history of posting sites as 'good evidence', or even 'proof', and having them turn out to be extremely biased, with no references, little research, and much that is taken for granted.

If you wish for me answer your questions, then I will indeed look at the site, however be advised that I will do so with an eye towards science, credibility, and logic, not towards faith, word of mouth, and wishful thinking.

I dont have time to read the site now, cuz I've got a lab report to finish, but I'll read the site either today if I finish and have time, or tommorow. I will say this before reading it though... Just because a city was found which seems to have fallen victim to something similar mentionned in the bible is not proof that that city is the one mentionned in the bible, and more importantly, it doesnt prove that god caused whatever happened to it.

Please Aquatus, I would be really honored if you looked at the site and tell me what you thought. You can even say that they at least raise an eyebrow, but you don't have to say God was involved. This site probably is biased because it's posting these pictures as proof for God. Read some of the text below the pictures and let me know what you think. If there is a really good scientific explanation for them, let me know. Thanks-Saucy

Nove, read Matthew 22:34-40 . It tells how to make God happy, by following the 2greatest commandments:

1--Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, soul, and mind
2--Love your neighbor, as you would love yourself.

It sounds like you are following the 2nd one. Now just make some time to find out how to do the first one.

...

Saucy, I clicked on your link and frowned at the very first sentence I saw.

I would like to recommend a test to you. Type "david wyatt noah" in a search engine and see what comes up. This goes towards the credibility of the information.

This very simple first step will save you a lot of time trying to figure how something happened, as it might well show you that the question isn't how something happened, but rather did something happen.

Saucy, here is a letter from a real scientist on your friend Ron Wyatt and his "Discovery"!!! LOL.

David Merling, Associate Director
Institute of Archaeology
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, MI 49104

January 13, 1993

Dear David:

Enclosed is a comprehensive article [ref. "Has Noah's Ark Been Found?"] on the claims for the discovery of Noah's ark. It appeared in CREATION EX NIHILO, an Australian journal. I am personally acquainted with the author, Andrew Snelling, and have spent time in the field with him. He is a responsible person and I am reasonably confident with what he has written. He answers your questions plus a great deal more information that may be of interest to you.

I recently read Ron Wyatt's book, DISCOVERED; NOAH'S ARK, and was appalled. It is one of the most disgusting books I have read. Naturally I have no problem with the discovery of Noah's ark, but the multitude of inaccuracies and errors certainly turns one off who has some information. Even the uninformed person should be suspicious when one individual claims to have found so many important artifacts that others have never found after years of diligent search.

Concerning growth rings: Wyatt refers to extinct giant club mosses that do not have growth rings as evidence that preflood trees do not have growth rings. The giant club moss, Sigillaria, could be compared with papaya, or banana or other fast-growing trees with pulpy wood. Yes, it does not have growth rings but that is not evidence for preflood conifers or deciduous trees. They do have good growth rings. I have spent years studying petrified trees in various areas of North America, in Patigonia, and in Australia. They have growth rings if they are trees that normally are expected to have rings.

He is mistaken concerning frozen mammoths - p. 73. He accepts dinosaur tracks and human footprints together in Texas (p. 74) and is not aware that creation groups have had to recant on that case when the so-called human footprints eroded into dinosaur tracks. Apparently he does not accept dinosaurs as real (p. 77). According to his book, glaciers were produced by the Flood waters. However, glaciers are not frozen water but compacted snow. The seasonal layering of the snow clearly can be seen when the glacier is drilled. His notion that there were post-flood giants because they ate preflood mammoths is so strange that it is hardly worth comment. If that were true, humans who eat mostly fish or fowl should be smaller than those who eat beef!

I could go on in greater length but that is probably unnecessary because the article by Snelling thoroughly debunks Wyatt's book and his research. If you have any more questions please write but I do not pose as an expert on the exploration and research on Noah's ark. I do hope that eventually Noah's ark is discovered but up to this point there has been much to do about almost nothing.

May God bless you in you work at Andrews University.

Sincerely yours.

Harold G. Coffin


Notice that Dr. Coffin is one of your own!!

Well, there you guys go again. Instead of trying to debunk what he actually found, you try to debunk his reputation. Everything found was not his discovery, but it is his website that reports on them. When it comes to Noah's Ark, I agree that finding it will be much more difficult than we realize, but the other finds, not so much so. Don't just look at the first line or who found it, try to actually debunk what was found, then I would doubt his reputation. He is a creationist and because of that, he isn't very credible to you and maybe he even has a few wacky theories, but who doesn't???

Saucy, he's already been debunked. Several times. He's been caught making stuff up. He has faked information. You complain that we aren't looking at what he has found, and you are missing the point that what he has found is stuff that he created himself.

His credibility wasn't low because he is a creationist, or even because he had some wacky theories. His credibility was low because he intentionally passed of false information as being true.

You can spend as much time as you like trying to find out why my car suddenly floated off into space, but your first step really needs to be a confirmation of what occured. Not how, but if.

If you want me to take something seriously, the first step is to present it without the word of a known liar as the source.

Saucy

If the Ark of the Covenant had been found, EVERYBODY would know about it.

If Noah's Ark has been found, EVERYBODY would know about it.

If a visitors center was built in Turkey, overlooking the arc, EVERYBODY would know about it.

Okay, I admit now that that guy is a fraud. But I actually saw on Unsolved Mysteries this morning that the site of Noah's ark (which he didn't find but was doing tests on it) was named by the Turkish Government as the offical site of Noah's Ark) He personally didn't make those discoveries, but simply reported them on his site. It's not that people don't know about it, it's that they don't believe it.

that guy ron is a fake if he not then y doesnt peole from his company revile this to the mass meida ,i mean hes brave enough to put it on the internet, none not one shred of evidence supports this quack, if u read in to the site ( reffuring to the ark) he found blood on it supposedly jesus's he had it tested he says then y wont he let anyone else take a look at it ! heres something intresting in ur search for anomlie on Mt Arrat y didnt ron mention that?

sorry i ment do a search on the anomile on Mt arrat

There's enough evidence to support that there is something in that area, but the Turkish Government won't let anyone get near anything to test it out. There's good evidence to support that both places could be the ark, but I don't personally believe it's still on Mt. Ararat in complete form.

No, actually, the Mt. Ararat anomaly pictures aren't even good evidence of something there. Heck, even decades ago, when the pictures where first taken, the military analysts didn't bother re-photographing the area. It just wasn't strange enough to call attention to itself. More recent studies have actually determined it to be a rock formation (which was the original conclusion), much like many of the other anomalies on rocky mountains. Even the majority of creationists websites promoting the Mt. Ararat anomaly have abandoned it as a simply a trick of the light.

As for the other site that he posted, I have looked at that picture many, many times, and I still cannot find anything on it that looks like anything other than a standard erosional river valley.

I've got a question. With all the boats created in human history, what do you think the chances would be that a few christians would be all over a find of a larger boat found on land?

I don't understand your question Stellar.

saucy, think about this. If the story of a great flood that lasted 40 days and covered the entire "known land mass", had actually happen, what would the survivors floating on a huge ark do with all the wood on the ark? Say you are on this ark and finally after floating on water you find land. Then you find that its really a mountain. There are no trees near by.
Once the water level goes down how long will it take to dry wood that you can burn for fire?
How long will it take for you to be able to travel back to where ever you need to go? Assuming there still is a place you can call home.
How many poeple do you think were actually on this ark?

Simply the way of life back then, logically points to one conclusion. The wood was used for survival. The ark would not have survived.

Cool site.

Nobody, that is an excellent point which I have never before heard. Dang, I love learning something new!

Wether or not Noah's ark still exists or is ever found is moot.As Christians we live by faith not by fact.Or at least we are suppose to.

Just like the priests, preachers and evangelist want you to, otherwise if you start really thinking they lose their trip on the Gravy Train!

Boy I'd love that to be true for all members of all religion, but its not.

I can't figure out why there is such a problem. I do have one question, I have noticed over the years that those who claim to be atheists know the scriptures better than some christians? It is as if they have to disprove the Bible in order to have their beliefs. I asked my sister, a devout militant type of atheist, that very question one day " I need to understand what I am fighting against." She went on to explain that her and her fellow atheists have decided that in order to have what they want, which is being atheist without guilt, they must make every attempt to break down Christianity. When I asked her why she just can't let those of us who believe have our beliefs while she has hers, she responded that is unacceptable because we just have to be right and make the believers see it our way. My sister and I have agreed to disagree and never discuss religion again. Except the day she was over at my house and decided that my Bible laying on my coffee table was offensive to her and when my back was turned she threw it into a trash can. She tried to explain it away as a political statement she felt compelled to make, we have not spoken since. I guess my point is why can't people be allowed to believe what they choose to believe and leave they others who don't believe as they do alone. I am probably off topic but after reading the post on this topic I felt compelled to respond, not trying to offend anyone.

Just as I am going to ignore that you keep inplying that I am an Atheist, when in fact I represent the belief system (Deism) that will probably replace your quickly dying religion.

beowulf
I do sincerely apologize, I did not mean to infer that I believed you to be an atheist. I should have done a better job of proof reading my text before posting it. I was however just trying to make a point.
Sincere Apologies
twpdyp

Twypdyp,

As you said, your sister represents a very militant type of atheist, much like Beowulf, I would suspect. The fact of the matter, however, is that the great majority of the atheists are, like the great majority of the Judeo-Christians, perfectly willing to live and let live. Personally, I find that I know more about biblical scripture because, due to my active participation in these sorts of discussion/debates, that the same ones are quoted back to me time and time again. Also, I have taken time to analyze and learn what the scriptures pertain to, because I have found that they are very often quoted out of context. It is this analytical approach, not any sort of desire to avoid guilt, that has increased my knowledge of the bible. As an atheist, I simply do not believe that God is anything other than a fictional character. To feel guilt at not believing in him would be similar to feeling guilty about not believing in Harry Potter.

As for throwing your bible in the trash can, I would call that both morallay and politically wrong. This is way more than a simpel statement; this is a declaration of war. To be perfectly frank, your sister sounds less like an atheist and more like some child trying to find a cause to fight for, without the faintest clue as to what it is about.

Sorry, I shouldn't have snapped at you, it's just that many Xians, when they find out that I don't subscribe to their beliefs, instantly accuse me of being an Atheist. I do indeed believe in a Creator, a loving Creator. This is one of the places that I do agree with some Xians and that is the Intelligent Design theory that is currently being pushed by certain groups. I don't buy into all of their thinking and mythology, but just looking at how everything meshes to allow life to exist on this small dirtball, tells me that the Creator loves us! As far as debunking the bible so that I can have what I want without guilt ---- I am a third generation Deist, my Dad was raised as a Deist (my Mom converted when she married him), and my Grandpa converted at the age of 21 to Deism (my Grandma was the one that showed him the way). I have never been an Xian and have raised my daughters as Deists. I debunk the bible because I have investigated the Jewish and Xian religions, their history, and the history of the area of their origin and found that there in absolutely nothing new in either one, they are just collections of bits and pieces of older religions all tied together as monotheism (altho even that might have been borrowed from Akhenaten's abortive religion). There is no other reason for my debunking other than that and the fact that Xians are constantly trying to push their mythology on anyone and everyone they suspect does not believe their way.

I apologize, Beowulf; I do recall reading somewhere that you are a deist, but it completely slipped my mind.

Aah no,as GOD wants us to.My faith is in him............not the church or any priest/preacher/evangelists etc.

But I'll bet you tithe.......

Saucy, here is a Xian site that you should look at as far as the Flood goes:

http://www.csun.edu/~VCgeo005/bible.htm

What the heck, here is another one too:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html

I think you will like Dr. Collins - Beowulf

I for one have never claimed to being an atheist. That has alway been a label attached for lack of real label. I do not believe.

The reason, for me at least, that I do seem to know more about scriptures and other religuous concepts is that I love to learn. People with religous inclinations love to 'educate' others on their particular believes. However, I do not take anything at face value. I will research, question, investigate, and contemplate anything and everything I learn or hear about. I did not stop asking why at 6 like most people. I added the part of 'how do you know this?' to my why.

Then I realize that people in the past did not think like us and I started to look at stories and history from a different point of view. Most atheist I have met seem to have a need to 'disprove' any religious claims, but because they cannot accept things on faith alone. This are people that have a need to understand the why and how of things before they can accept them. This behavior in turn leads to a more detailed understanding of scriptures among other things.

"Most answers are very simple, but we tend to make them complicated."
wise young person.

Even us Christians are iffy on whether Ron Hyatt's discoveries are sincere.

Excellent point!

Tithing, regardless of whether or not you tithe at the 10% level or something less, is not necessarily a bad thing. You do want to make sure you know where your money is going, but that is the case with anything else you spend your money on, like charities, lawyers, etc...

Most priests and pastors work very hard, providing pastoral care for their churchmembers. Televangelists and TV preachers, on the other hand, tend to be more the "gravy train" types.

This in no way deals with the website posted by the original creater of this thread. I may be considered an idiot for not giving it enough time or effort to read through this man's opinion.........oh well, i don't mind that at all. My beliefs on many of the Biblical stories seem so unbased that it makes sense someone from this time period would have written them. One of my favorites is the story of the great flood which to me it's very clear that it is impossible without the helping hand of God. We have a ship created to carry and shelter atleast 2 animals from each species on the planet. This ship would have to be enormous seeing as how there are roughly 30-50 million different species of animals on the planet. To further look into the animal aspect of the equation any animals that cannot live under water would have been killed during the flood. Now we know for fact that mammals were alive during this time in the Americas that did not exist in the other half of the world. The world which the creators of this story knew. Also after the ship was beach on land their would be an odd group of species living in this area. I do not know this story perfectly which is probably a good thing or as a child I would have believed it. I know the basis so maybe u can help me did they mention that the animals returned to their native places and that could explain animals being in the new world before and after the flood. Ahh....but seeing as how these animals would be destroyed by water in the first place and there is not a land bridge to get them back to the Americas God had to have helped them. I think you can see my thoughts about that aspect. Now for the rain itself. If I am correct the flood covered the entire planet. To have done so the rain would have had to have raised above 29,028 seeing as how that is the height above sea level at which mount everest stands. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. For this to have happened it would have had to rained .5039583333333333 feet per minute for 40 days straight. Now that might sound possible but it would have to had done this across the entire span of the earth at the same time for this amount of time in this quantity. Furthermore if any of you still think that is possible look at it this way with every inch the water rose the larger the space it had to feel would greaten. If you were filling a funnel the size of a house and at the small end of the funnel it was only 3 inches wide the more u filled it the more u would have to put in to raise it another level this is a simple way of looking at the earth. Again if God wanted this to happen he could have done it by believers rules. Here is another odd thing about the earth it doesn't just get rid of that much water as we know now the circulation of weather and water cycle takes water out and palces it back now anyone of any common sense will know all of this water would not have just dissappeared now at this time they didn't understand how rain and water cycle worked so placing this idea in a story wouldn't have been seen as incorrect. Now again if God wanted the water to leave then yes he could have done away with it. But ahh lol if God is the know all be all over everything and created all of this and knew in advance it was going to happen then why would he create a system of water cycle that would go against a flood he created out of no where why wouldn't he simply incorperate this into his grand plan. If you say this is a test of peoples faith then i ask you this why would he be testing his most intelligent people and in a way almost lying to them and possibley condemning them to hell lol i'm done

Gee I wish I had a job that "hard" instead of one that requires 12 to 18 hours a day! I think my children wouldn't recognize me....

Think about this, to be spiritual or religious are two different things, but for simplicity sake, lets keep it simple, to believe in a god or not to believe in a god.

If a god truly wanted us to know he was "there," then he would. Without question. If he wants us to find out for ourselves, a god would know that would never happen because without 150% proof, humanity keeps on questioning.

As far as religion goes, I'm agnostic. It means I believe in a god, but I don't follow any faith or religion, I just live my life as best I can to be happy and have a great life for myself, not to make a god happy. I'm no atheist. I don't try to disprove the Bible or God. People like the sister mentioned earlier are radicals just like Christians avidly trying to make people believe in God. You will always have extremists. All anyone can ask in life is that we know who we are and who/what we believe in, and share our opinions, not try to change someones mind, that will just make people hypocrites.

I detest the saying (it's a bumper sticker too) "I'm a Christian but I can get away with things because I pray." Hypocritical. Only one person can know your heart and mind. No one should lie to themselves just to look better to others.

On that website of the discoveries, it said flat out "millions of people need to hear about these findings so they have proof in their faith." Faith is about trusting without proof. If you ask me, anyone who needs proof shouldn't be religious or spiritual, it's not what that's about. Faith is trusting in something without needing proof. That "debunks" a lot of so called "religious" people.